Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DSRELIGION)
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Religion. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Religion|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Religion. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Religion

edit

Bishop Wilkins College

edit
Bishop Wilkins College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject doesn't appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia. toweli (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard McDonald (academic)

edit
Richard McDonald (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. He worked for some important organizations in non-major roles. I see no sign of any influential scientific publication of his on a reputable journal, or any terminal degree for that matter. This looks more like a resume of a postgraduate student than anything else. Badbluebus (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, creation of page was due to unusual and niche academic field of minority religions in prison, which is the topic of his first publication due for release in 2024. His terminal degree was completed at Birkbeck Dept. Of Psychosocial Studies but I can’t find a citation for this so I didn’t include. On the ‘non major roles point’ - understood, but he held the role ‘Head of Policy’ for HMPPS in 2023 which feels notable? Apols if I’ve made it sound like an advert JapaneseWoodblocks (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thanks for making this page. If I can make the case a bit more: is a nascent academic but in a niche and unusual field of writing about Norse paganism in prison which distinguishes his contribution and his first publication is a book chapter with Bloomsbury coming out in December.
He sits on various policy and governance boards for national organisations including charities (Traveller movement) and the Magistrate’s association. I know he sits on several more including the Uni of Sheffield but can’t cite this.
I don’t want it to read like an advert, just an encyclopaedia entry for a niche academic who works at the intersections of religion and penology. JapaneseWoodblocks (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coriantumr (son of Omer)

edit
Coriantumr (son of Omer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not eligible for WP:PROD due to unresolved talk page discussion about notability; should be resolved. No independent, reliable sourcing to suggest a standalone page is necessary. Fails the WP:GNG. Goldsztajn (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Church Festival

edit
Big Church Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I boldy merged this article over a year ago, but just noticed that my redirect was reverted in October. This festival fails WP:NCONCERT/WP:NCORP (which I think applies because this is a non-profit festival, i.e., an organization that puts on an event once a year). I have been unable to find sustained, in-depth coverage of the festival. As there is still merged content in Christian music festival#Worldwide, I propose restoring the redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Israel Shinn

edit
Robert Israel Shinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I redirected this article to 7M Films but it was reverted. The subject of this article does not seem to be notable outside of his company 7M nor the documentary about this company (Dancing for the Devil: The 7M TikTok Cult). Mbdfar (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the subject might not be notable enough to warrant an independent page, but I felt that your redirect removed information that made the article more complete. I apologize if reverting was the wrong course of action. Could it be possible to merge all 3 articles on the subject (7M Films, Robert Israel Shinn, and Dancing for the Devil: The 7M TikTok Cult) together? Cowlan (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fresno

edit
List of schools in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fresno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged uncited for more than 15 years and only the 2 high schools have articles Chidgk1 (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more input since the identified target is solely a link back here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time dilation creationism

edit
Time dilation creationism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFRINGE. I find no notice of this by WP:FRIND sources. Only creationists seem interested enough to comment. Wikipedia really is WP:NOT for discussing every flight-of-fancy that a creationist has about how to reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific facts. jps (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of meeting notability guidelines, which would be provided by significant coverage in non-crackpot sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:FRINGE creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Nom admits this is a religious, not scientific topic, and yet proposes to apply scientific article criteria to it, making this nomination completely erroneous and hence eligible for speedy keep per SK#3. The religious sources are sufficient and appropriate (independent, etc.) for GNG to be satisfied. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What an absurd argument. Creationists routinely present their arguments as 'scientific', and are clearly doing so in this particular instance. Just read the sources cited. Pseudoscience does not cease to be pseudoscience when promoted to support religious faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they do. And when they're doing so on a religious basis, religious rules apply, not FRINGE. Sorry if you don't like the guideline, but I didn't write it. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant section in WP:FRINGE makes absolutely clear that it is referring to Notable perspectives and states the fact that claims from [e.g. creationist] perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. The article presents zero evidence that either mainstream theologians nor mainstream scientists have even heard of this 'perspective', never mind bothered trying to address it. The only non-creationist source currently cited in the article doesn't even bother to describe the 'perspective' in any detail, instead mentioning "time dilation" in passing in a single sentence in a section on "Examples of Pseudoscience". [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article? In what way is this article describing the creation of the world on a purely religious basis? Are you claiming that Russell Humphreys believes that time dilation is some sort of theological allegory?! jps (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's literally using Christian-themed sources, 6 and 7 in particular. Christianity is still a religion... That's what the person was explaining. Oaktree b (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the above, the suggestion that the religious sources being cited are 'independent' is both questionable and irrelevant, since they clearly aren't reliable sources for anything but the beliefs of their own authors regarding an obscure theory. Nothing is cited that establishes that this particular pseudoscientific hypothesis is even significant within creationism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I stripped out the science WP templates from the talk page as being non-relevant. The stub template was changed from cosmology to creationism. Beyond that I have no particular preference; it's pure pseudoscience so astronomy isn't all that relevant. Praemonitus (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks notability in RS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It should be kept in mind that the primary focus of the article is not scientific, but religious. It is a theological doctrine more than serious science. Thus it should be viewed with the criteria of a religious article. I did not intend to promote this thing when creating the article and I did not intend to promote fringe theories, but I thought that the article should be there to represent different religious doctrines. And as someone else already noted, WP:FRINGE reads: creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Thus the point of the original deletion request does not seem to be valid. As a religious doctrine, there seems to be just enough coverage for it. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my response to Jclemens above. No evidence has been provided that this perspective/doctrine has been "disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists". Or discussed in any detail by non-creationist sources at all. There is no religious exception to Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you don't understand what is religious and what is not is not our responsibility. Science is testable under controlled, repeatable conditions; this is not. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you have just discovered pseudoscience. As for what is or isn't religious, I have a degree in anthropology, and accordingly could write an entire dissertation on why trying to divide things into the religious and the non-religious is a fools errand. Fortunately though, that is unnecessary, since Wikipedia doesn't take such questions into account when dismissing as non-notable obscure proposals regarding time dilation and the origins of the universe only discussed in unreliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You realize you just ceded the point that this is a religious topic, right? That makes your critique of the sources as "crackpot" irrelevant and voids your !vote: the sources in the article may not be appropriate for a scientific discourse, but there's nothing obviously wrong with them as religious sources. Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis are reliable sources--torchbearers, really--for the literalist Genesis/YEC religious perspective, so notability is met unless this is entirely a non-religious topic, which you have just ceded you cannot definitively assess. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You now seem to be claiming that the mere fact that Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis have written about something makes it inherently notable. That is utterly absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Religious content can be crackpot. For example, this content. jps (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the complete lack of coverage in non-creationist sources, and the lack of evidence that this is even significant to creationism, there is nothing to move. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense. If there's verifiable content--and there is--an appropriate merger is a perfectly valid ATD. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "verifiable content" is there? The fantasies of Young Earth Creationists that no one else even bothers to notice? jps (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is literally a single WP:RS. That means no significant coverage, as in not notable, and that in fact it’s . We have long used WP:FRINGE to get rid of essays and pages that are little more than gee-whiz trivial nonsense, hey look at this kooky little idea. Bearian (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am sorry if I misjudged the worthiness of the topic to be on Wikipedia when I created it, I did not intend to promote fringe theories. If I was wrong, then it can just be deleted. I thought that since it is a religious topic and I was able to find multiple religious sources about it, then it could be worth its own article, but I may have been mistaken about their worthiness on such a topic. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to apologize. WP:FRINGE is hard to get right especially as there are often sources that show up about fringe topics which superficially look reasonable (and might be in less, let's say, controversial areas). The general principle that I find works well is that we can have articles on fringe subjects when they are noticed by people who are not convinced that the fringe idea in question is necessarily correct, but where it gets confusing is when you have internecine disputes among fringe claimants so it looks like you have "independent analysis" in the sources when instead you are just looking at different flavors of fringe. Keeping topics out of Wikipedia for which sourcing cannot follow the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding is one of the better solutions we've arrived at to keep the integrity of the reference work high. The alternative is a free-for-all. jps (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that this isn't FRINGE. It's religious. It has "creationism" right there in the title. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its fringe, even for creationism. And it isn't notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory. Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects. For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research—denialist histories, for example—should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic. Emphasis mine. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've already read that. And quoted it above. Where I pointed out that "mainstream theologians and scientists" have said absolutely nothing on this topic. Which is why it is fringe, why it isn't notable, and why an appropriate encyclopaedic article cannot be written. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It bases articles on secondary sources, removed from the subject itself. Not on a few primary sources arguing the toss about pseudoscientific hokum amongst themselves. There is no religious exception to Wikipedia notability requirements. Notability is demonstrated through coverage in sources independent of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let it go, man. Your ridiculous misunderstanding is clearly not the consensus understanding of our community. If you want to change our rules, start a conversation elsewhere. jps (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, while I've disengaged, several others have come along and agreed with my perspective. I do not think the consensus is what you think it is. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: While fringe hypotheses can be notable, there isn't enough coverage of this one in WP:RS to warrant a separate article. Any content from this article that's up to standard should be merged/transcluded into one of the other articles on creationism. 0xchase (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Creation_science#Creationist_cosmologies and mention it by name there since the it is the "relativistic effects" mentioned. This comes up in teaching astronomy classes and there is a source:
Bobrowsky, Matthew (2005). "Dealing with Disbelieving Students on Issues of Evolutionary Processes and Long Time Scales". Astronomy Education Review. 4 (1): 95–118. doi:10.3847/AER2005007.
StarryGrandma (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Young_Earth_creationism#View_of_the_Bible as a parallel subsection as Interpretations_of_Genesis. The title is a highly specialized jargon that is exclusively related to the field of creationism, and as the article itself claims, it “is a form of the Young Earth creationism”. Given the current shortness of the article, a reader would frequently click back and forth between this and other pages related to creationism for a better understanding. It’s actually easier for readers if the short article be merged with a most relevant and more comprehensive article. Nihonjinatny (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's not clear to be relevant as a standalone idea to merit being talked about. And besides, the only criticism is from other creationists, the article still lacks a mention to the mainstream scientific ideas. And for those saying that "this is religion, not science", that distinction is only relevant on how we write the article. Notability, if we should have an article to begin with, is unconcerned by that. Neither religious nor scientific topics are automatically exempt from the notability guideline just because of their topic. Cambalachero (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same as previous relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect/merge if an appropriate target can be found. Current coverage is not sufficient and I am unable to locate additional coverage which would be either. Not seeing any pressing reasons to believe that such coverage does exist either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Two different Redirect/Merge target articles are being proposed, would there be any consenus on this point? This might be a valid search term.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The only RS I'd consider is 2, the Proceedings, and that's a big "if". Creation.com or Answers from genesis don't strike me as RS, and I don't find anything else that we can use to describe this phenomenon. Gscholar of course has nothing about this, so I'm not sure what we can use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If we must !merge, the creationist cosmologies would be my choice... I don't even think this warrants more than a brief mention there. Deletion is still my choice. Oaktree b (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:FRINGE seems to establish that things like creationism should be evaluated for notability on both a religious and scientific basis. That does not mean they are exempt from the guideline. The only reliable independent source is the Stephen Law chapter on the epistemology of pseudoscience which mentions this in a single sentence as an example of an argument a creationist might make. With respect to those who've suggested a merge, there simply is not anything that meets notability to merge here. Chaste Krassley (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a noteworthy idea in the annals of pseudoscientific ideas. Hanging onto the page as a redirect would be inventing a term where none has been established to exist; "time dilation" is a term that creationists have occasionally invoked to try and make science go away, but time dilation creationism is not a distinct version of creationism. XOR'easter (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religion Proposed deletions

edit

Religion Templates

edit


Atheism

edit

Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala

edit
Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no WP:RELIABILITY, Most of the sources given here are their YouTube channel links, sources are self-published, clearly fails WP:GNG. Thank you! Spworld2 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

edit


Buddhism

edit

Christiane Wolf

edit
Christiane Wolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

She's evidently done commendable work, such as the VA program, but I can't find significant coverage of her, or reviews of her books in reliable sources, to meet WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. She's also worked with some notable people, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

edit

Templates

edit

Miscellaneous

edit


Christianity

edit

Presbyterian Church in Korea (BoSuHapDong III.)

edit
Presbyterian Church in Korea (BoSuHapDong III.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korea Jesus Presbyterian Church with a single page nominated rather than a bundle.

Bosu Hapdong (Korean: 보수합동) translates as "Conservative Union". The only source is a database of Church denominations, which "did not manage to contact this church". This is insufficient sourcing to keep this as an article.

Furthermore, the title is mangled with an unnecessary . character, and the Roman Numeral may be an invention of reformiert-online. Korean Wikipedia does not have an article on this; a cursory search in Korean did not find an immediate result for (or about) any group of this name.

For a potential redirect, it is unclear what the target would be: Presbyterian Church of Korea, Presbyterianism in South Korea, or a new page. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of pievi

edit
List of pievi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The contents look like a disambiguation page, yet none of these entries would be known under the name "Pieve" alone, so no disambiguation is required.

The name suggests it's a list of pievi. However, pievi were very numerous, and this list would be woefully incomplete if this is the goal. I don't think it's feasible or necessary for Wikipedia to have a list of pievi.

The descriptions refer to the present-day non-ecclesiastical administrative territorial entities named after these historic no-longer extant and non-notable ecclesiastical administrative territorial entities. A minority of the listed articles do describe the history of the related pievi, eg. Città della Pieve#History and Pieve di Cento#History. Daask (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Wilkins College

edit
Bishop Wilkins College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject doesn't appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia. toweli (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carleton House Preparatory School

edit
Carleton House Preparatory School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article that does not appear to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The reason I created the article was due to the Schools inclusion in a number of articles by UK News Outlets about the continued success of the school, with it earning the title and reputation in the Liverpool region for "the best institution for primary education in Merseyside" https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/best-primary-schools-merseyside-ranked-22404373 this coupled with it being featured nationally in the times schools of the year rankings. The decision to create it an article also stems from the history the schools establishment is the continuation of Woolton Hall Preparatory School, part of the history of Woolton Hall. I would also like to state that it has only been a matter of hours since the articles creation, and I believe it would be more prudent to expand the third party sourcing of this school's article rather then deleting it. I would also like to advise that it does not fall under a for-profit school due to its establishment as a registered charity for providing a school upholding the catholic faith, UK Gov Charity registration number will be added to the article to greater clarify this. Knowledgework69 (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is if you can provide three reliable and independent sources that have WP:SIGCOV about the school. Wikipedia has certain guidelines for inclusion, so school rankings by themselves aren't really what I'm looking for. An AfD lasts at least 7 days so there is no need to rush. But I did not find the sourcing I was hoping to find when I looked. Drafts cannot overcome notability concerns and aren't supposed to be a backdoor to deletion, so I figured it'd be worth raising the matter now. I'm not unreasonable as long as you can provide that sourcing, I'd withdraw. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, totally understand I am trying to look through articles now bare with. Knowledgework69 (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
more sources pertaining to history and charity and constitution added Knowledgework69 (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a further point to the schools notability https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/junior-sport/carleton-house-reach-finals-3509155 for sporting success it has competed successfully at the highest level of Junior School sports in England, which was reported on in news articles Knowledgework69 (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I need to prove the school's notability. I need significant coverage. Can you find sources that meet what's described there? I haven't been able to yet. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The School was featured in two books published in 2022 and 2023 respectively information pertaining to them can now be found on the article under the School section. Knowledgework69 (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A children's book featuring the school's mascot is not SIGCOV about the school itself. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you can overcome the notability hurdle, there's still the promotional issue. The entire lede consists of promotional items not discussed elsewhere in the article. A lede for a school article should include the town and political division where the school is located; the name of the lowest level administrative authority that controls it, and a brief summary of the high points of the rest of the article. Also, you should arrange the sections of the article as outlined at WP:WPSCH/AG. Further, there is a bunch of flowery language scattered throughout the article. A good rule of thumb is, you cannot say anything either good or bad about the school in Wikipedia's voice. You need to directly quote a reliable secondary source that is completely independent of the school. I'd lean towards draftifying the article to give the author time to work on all the issues. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. I found four reliable sources in this article with significant coverage:
  1. Focused Compliance and Educational Quality Education Reports
  2. ECHO News, The best primary schools in Merseyside as ranked by Sunday Times Schools Guide 2022
  3. The Victorian Age, A History of Allerton and Mossley Hill
  4. Carleton House Preparatory School, Calderstones, Liverpool
There are three additional sources on two books about the school's mascot and school motto, ‘They Can Because They Think They Can’:
  1. An Interview with Helen Yoxall Burns
  2. ‘EMPOWERING OUR CHILDREN’ THE MESSAGE AS CARLETON HOUSE PREPARATORY SCHOOL MASCOT FEATURES IN SECOND CHRISTMAS CHILDREN’S BOOK
  3. An Interview with Helen Yoxall Burns, Carleton and The Christmas Grump: Launch Date 8th December 2023
However, the text in the History section needs to be re-worked, preferably using chronological order and a simplified narrative. It would be useful to differentiate between the history of the buildings the school has occupied from the various iterations of the school's title and organization. Primary schools seldom meet the referencing requirements of WP:GNG, but this one now does, thanks to WP:HEY effort of Knowledgework69. It's kind of like a diamond in the rough... it just needs some polishing now. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, and I agree with your suggestion to differentiate between the history of Beechenhurst House and Woolton Hall, and of the School Knowledgework69 (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Paul-Enenche

edit
Deborah Paul-Enenche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A ministry's creative director provides no inherent notability nor grounds for a redirect thereto, and she was covered for some passing stories around her wedding, but sourcing is mostly unsubstantial and inappropriate for a BLP. Should this close as a redirect, suggest protection as it will only be re-created. Star Mississippi 19:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Church Festival

edit
Big Church Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I boldy merged this article over a year ago, but just noticed that my redirect was reverted in October. This festival fails WP:NCONCERT/WP:NCORP (which I think applies because this is a non-profit festival, i.e., an organization that puts on an event once a year). I have been unable to find sustained, in-depth coverage of the festival. As there is still merged content in Christian music festival#Worldwide, I propose restoring the redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Van Bik

edit
David Van Bik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A (very interesting) article about a Bible translator that unfortunately fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO for lack of WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. The two main sources for the article are both WP:SPS and thus prima facie unreliable. One is a collection of remembrances by Van Bik's friend; the other is a self-published (Xulon Press) book by a close friend of Van Bik and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing else of use. Don't see a valid redirect target. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bible, Christianity, and Myanmar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a bit of a stretch, but per ANYBIO #2 The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, I'm seeing him referenced briefly in the academic missiological literature as a translator:
    "This was followed by David Van Bik and Robert G. Johnson’s translation of the Old Testament, published by United Bible Society through BSI in 1978" in Haokip, D.L. (2020). "Bible Translation in Kuki-Chin of Indo-Myanmar and Bangladesh: A Historical Analysis." In: Behera, M. (eds) Tribal Studies in India. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9026-6_7
    "More Chin students, including well-known Chin Bible translators, David Van Bik and Stephen Hre Kio, came and studied in the United States afterward." in Mang, P. Z. (2023). Chin Diaspora Christianity in the United States. Theology Today, 80(2), 173-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/00405736231172682 Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it seems like a stretch... there are a lot of people who work as Bible translators in the world's many languages, and I don't know that these brief references constitute a "widely recognized contribution." The second reference claims him to be "well known" but the rest of the sourcing doesn't validate that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Taking a cursory look at the article, the source formatting is impressive and I initially believed that the subject was undoubtedly noteworthy. But looking at a sources a bit more reveals how narrow and superficial they are. The article's sources all come from just one book. Looking just at the PDF of the book reveals some serious problems (besides the fact that it is written in, yes, Comic Sans). First of all, the book seems to be self-published, which immediately excludes it as a reliable source per WP:RSSELF. The article also takes some of the exaggerated claims in the book as fact when it should not. Looking at [5] it looks like a WP:BLOG. It goes without saying that the article is sort of a mess, and its sources are no different. The subject fails the widespread, independent secondary sources usually required for notability. GuardianH (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article's sources all come from just one book is not a correct statement. The majority of the sources do, including quoting separate chapter authors so it seems more diverse than it is, but not all sources come from that book. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    --> Correction: yes, I meant to say most sources, rather than all. GuardianH (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Gibson (Christian musician)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Jon Gibson (Christian musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose this article for deletion because there are many, many, many "sources" but which are often profiles and biographies sometimes written by the artist himself and anonymous users, the sourcing is horrible and it is difficult to find your way around, if the article is eligible it is absolutely necessary to rework the sourcing, I tried to improve it, but... SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also a lot of these "sources" come from databases like AllMusic, are there any press articles or better quality elements? SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, although it happens articles older than 6 months are not supposed to be moved to draft so if it is kept it needs to be fixed while in mainspace, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourcing on this article is a mess. Far, far too many citations to sources that don't help with notability, which makes assessing it very difficult. I have gone through every single reference and found exactly one that in my opinion shows notability: Soultracks bio, which looks like an independent and in-depth biography. Doing a search, I have found: Hot Hits book, a little snippet; Charisma and Christian Life, a frustratingly obscured piece that looks to be mostly about an album but I can't be sure. The second source Atlantic306 has noted is an interview, which cannot contribute to notability (sorry).
In short, based on the sources I could find, delete. It feels like there should be enough RS somewhere out there, but they're not in the article and I can't find enough to say keep. Atlantic306, do you have access to any offline sources that are pushing you towards keep? He seems like he ought to be notable...maybe some of his albums are notable and we could redirect? StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't have access to any offline sources but there are quite a few book results in a google search which I cant assess unfortunately as either its a small snippet given or none at all. Reviews of his music do count towards notability so I would include the reviews on CrossRythmns and on AllMusic (the paragraph ones, not the single sentence ones), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time dilation creationism

edit
Time dilation creationism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFRINGE. I find no notice of this by WP:FRIND sources. Only creationists seem interested enough to comment. Wikipedia really is WP:NOT for discussing every flight-of-fancy that a creationist has about how to reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific facts. jps (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of meeting notability guidelines, which would be provided by significant coverage in non-crackpot sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:FRINGE creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Nom admits this is a religious, not scientific topic, and yet proposes to apply scientific article criteria to it, making this nomination completely erroneous and hence eligible for speedy keep per SK#3. The religious sources are sufficient and appropriate (independent, etc.) for GNG to be satisfied. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What an absurd argument. Creationists routinely present their arguments as 'scientific', and are clearly doing so in this particular instance. Just read the sources cited. Pseudoscience does not cease to be pseudoscience when promoted to support religious faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they do. And when they're doing so on a religious basis, religious rules apply, not FRINGE. Sorry if you don't like the guideline, but I didn't write it. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant section in WP:FRINGE makes absolutely clear that it is referring to Notable perspectives and states the fact that claims from [e.g. creationist] perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. The article presents zero evidence that either mainstream theologians nor mainstream scientists have even heard of this 'perspective', never mind bothered trying to address it. The only non-creationist source currently cited in the article doesn't even bother to describe the 'perspective' in any detail, instead mentioning "time dilation" in passing in a single sentence in a section on "Examples of Pseudoscience". [9] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article? In what way is this article describing the creation of the world on a purely religious basis? Are you claiming that Russell Humphreys believes that time dilation is some sort of theological allegory?! jps (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's literally using Christian-themed sources, 6 and 7 in particular. Christianity is still a religion... That's what the person was explaining. Oaktree b (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the above, the suggestion that the religious sources being cited are 'independent' is both questionable and irrelevant, since they clearly aren't reliable sources for anything but the beliefs of their own authors regarding an obscure theory. Nothing is cited that establishes that this particular pseudoscientific hypothesis is even significant within creationism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I stripped out the science WP templates from the talk page as being non-relevant. The stub template was changed from cosmology to creationism. Beyond that I have no particular preference; it's pure pseudoscience so astronomy isn't all that relevant. Praemonitus (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks notability in RS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It should be kept in mind that the primary focus of the article is not scientific, but religious. It is a theological doctrine more than serious science. Thus it should be viewed with the criteria of a religious article. I did not intend to promote this thing when creating the article and I did not intend to promote fringe theories, but I thought that the article should be there to represent different religious doctrines. And as someone else already noted, WP:FRINGE reads: creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Thus the point of the original deletion request does not seem to be valid. As a religious doctrine, there seems to be just enough coverage for it. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my response to Jclemens above. No evidence has been provided that this perspective/doctrine has been "disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists". Or discussed in any detail by non-creationist sources at all. There is no religious exception to Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you don't understand what is religious and what is not is not our responsibility. Science is testable under controlled, repeatable conditions; this is not. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you have just discovered pseudoscience. As for what is or isn't religious, I have a degree in anthropology, and accordingly could write an entire dissertation on why trying to divide things into the religious and the non-religious is a fools errand. Fortunately though, that is unnecessary, since Wikipedia doesn't take such questions into account when dismissing as non-notable obscure proposals regarding time dilation and the origins of the universe only discussed in unreliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You realize you just ceded the point that this is a religious topic, right? That makes your critique of the sources as "crackpot" irrelevant and voids your !vote: the sources in the article may not be appropriate for a scientific discourse, but there's nothing obviously wrong with them as religious sources. Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis are reliable sources--torchbearers, really--for the literalist Genesis/YEC religious perspective, so notability is met unless this is entirely a non-religious topic, which you have just ceded you cannot definitively assess. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You now seem to be claiming that the mere fact that Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis have written about something makes it inherently notable. That is utterly absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Religious content can be crackpot. For example, this content. jps (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the complete lack of coverage in non-creationist sources, and the lack of evidence that this is even significant to creationism, there is nothing to move. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense. If there's verifiable content--and there is--an appropriate merger is a perfectly valid ATD. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "verifiable content" is there? The fantasies of Young Earth Creationists that no one else even bothers to notice? jps (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is literally a single WP:RS. That means no significant coverage, as in not notable, and that in fact it’s . We have long used WP:FRINGE to get rid of essays and pages that are little more than gee-whiz trivial nonsense, hey look at this kooky little idea. Bearian (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am sorry if I misjudged the worthiness of the topic to be on Wikipedia when I created it, I did not intend to promote fringe theories. If I was wrong, then it can just be deleted. I thought that since it is a religious topic and I was able to find multiple religious sources about it, then it could be worth its own article, but I may have been mistaken about their worthiness on such a topic. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to apologize. WP:FRINGE is hard to get right especially as there are often sources that show up about fringe topics which superficially look reasonable (and might be in less, let's say, controversial areas). The general principle that I find works well is that we can have articles on fringe subjects when they are noticed by people who are not convinced that the fringe idea in question is necessarily correct, but where it gets confusing is when you have internecine disputes among fringe claimants so it looks like you have "independent analysis" in the sources when instead you are just looking at different flavors of fringe. Keeping topics out of Wikipedia for which sourcing cannot follow the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding is one of the better solutions we've arrived at to keep the integrity of the reference work high. The alternative is a free-for-all. jps (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that this isn't FRINGE. It's religious. It has "creationism" right there in the title. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its fringe, even for creationism. And it isn't notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory. Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects. For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research—denialist histories, for example—should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic. Emphasis mine. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've already read that. And quoted it above. Where I pointed out that "mainstream theologians and scientists" have said absolutely nothing on this topic. Which is why it is fringe, why it isn't notable, and why an appropriate encyclopaedic article cannot be written. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It bases articles on secondary sources, removed from the subject itself. Not on a few primary sources arguing the toss about pseudoscientific hokum amongst themselves. There is no religious exception to Wikipedia notability requirements. Notability is demonstrated through coverage in sources independent of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let it go, man. Your ridiculous misunderstanding is clearly not the consensus understanding of our community. If you want to change our rules, start a conversation elsewhere. jps (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, while I've disengaged, several others have come along and agreed with my perspective. I do not think the consensus is what you think it is. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: While fringe hypotheses can be notable, there isn't enough coverage of this one in WP:RS to warrant a separate article. Any content from this article that's up to standard should be merged/transcluded into one of the other articles on creationism. 0xchase (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Creation_science#Creationist_cosmologies and mention it by name there since the it is the "relativistic effects" mentioned. This comes up in teaching astronomy classes and there is a source:
Bobrowsky, Matthew (2005). "Dealing with Disbelieving Students on Issues of Evolutionary Processes and Long Time Scales". Astronomy Education Review. 4 (1): 95–118. doi:10.3847/AER2005007.
StarryGrandma (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Young_Earth_creationism#View_of_the_Bible as a parallel subsection as Interpretations_of_Genesis. The title is a highly specialized jargon that is exclusively related to the field of creationism, and as the article itself claims, it “is a form of the Young Earth creationism”. Given the current shortness of the article, a reader would frequently click back and forth between this and other pages related to creationism for a better understanding. It’s actually easier for readers if the short article be merged with a most relevant and more comprehensive article. Nihonjinatny (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's not clear to be relevant as a standalone idea to merit being talked about. And besides, the only criticism is from other creationists, the article still lacks a mention to the mainstream scientific ideas. And for those saying that "this is religion, not science", that distinction is only relevant on how we write the article. Notability, if we should have an article to begin with, is unconcerned by that. Neither religious nor scientific topics are automatically exempt from the notability guideline just because of their topic. Cambalachero (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same as previous relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect/merge if an appropriate target can be found. Current coverage is not sufficient and I am unable to locate additional coverage which would be either. Not seeing any pressing reasons to believe that such coverage does exist either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Two different Redirect/Merge target articles are being proposed, would there be any consenus on this point? This might be a valid search term.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The only RS I'd consider is 2, the Proceedings, and that's a big "if". Creation.com or Answers from genesis don't strike me as RS, and I don't find anything else that we can use to describe this phenomenon. Gscholar of course has nothing about this, so I'm not sure what we can use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If we must !merge, the creationist cosmologies would be my choice... I don't even think this warrants more than a brief mention there. Deletion is still my choice. Oaktree b (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:FRINGE seems to establish that things like creationism should be evaluated for notability on both a religious and scientific basis. That does not mean they are exempt from the guideline. The only reliable independent source is the Stephen Law chapter on the epistemology of pseudoscience which mentions this in a single sentence as an example of an argument a creationist might make. With respect to those who've suggested a merge, there simply is not anything that meets notability to merge here. Chaste Krassley (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a noteworthy idea in the annals of pseudoscientific ideas. Hanging onto the page as a redirect would be inventing a term where none has been established to exist; "time dilation" is a term that creationists have occasionally invoked to try and make science go away, but time dilation creationism is not a distinct version of creationism. XOR'easter (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

edit

Categories for discussion

edit

Miscellaneous

edit

Hinduism

edit

Velappaya Mahadevar temple

edit
Velappaya Mahadevar temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no RS found found based on a google search. Sohom (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on the quality of sources. They need to be reliable sources that provide SIGCOV, not passing mentions. Also, User:பொதுஉதவி, I'd like to now what "Wikipedia guidelines" you are referring to in your Keep opinion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sanskrit authors from lower communities

edit
List of Sanskrit authors from lower communities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very unclear whether this group of "lower communities" which includes e.g. Sat-Sudra (considered higher castes), is a commonly accepted grouping with a clear definition, or some division created specifically for this article. Also not clear if the topic (Sanskrit texts by caste division) is a topic of study and whether these people are grouped together scholarly, or if this is some novel WP:SYNTH list. Fram (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article of Sat-Sudra is very badly written. I have suggested an edit but my edit is reverted. Please check. Sat-shoodras are only higher than other shudras (asat shudras) and lower than every other varna. That is, Lower than Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishya. See the note on sat-shoodra there. Caste boundaries can't be clearly defined due to their complexities. The main castes are mentioned themselves which are considered lower nonetheless. Sat-shoodra only highlights their status in varna system. This is a dynamic list and more people from other communities can be added by everyone. The topic of debate has always been whether lower communities have contributed to sanskrit among scholars. This article helps in breaking the myths of denial of education and lack of scholarship among lower communities and foster inclusivity. Mohit Dokania (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NLIST and WP:RS. Almost 60 % of the sources are unreliable. Andhraportal, wisdomlib, jainqq.org, sanskritkosha,sndp, sanskritdocuments etc., are not RS. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent, reliable sources, which I find none here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All references to Wisdomlib, Jainqq.org and sanskritkosha are of published books available on those sources. Which are both reliable and accurate. All the information provided are as accurate as possible. You can challenge any misinformation in talk page. This has always been the matter of debate among scholars to assess the contribution of lower communuties in Sanskrit literature. See this. Mohit Dokania (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

edit

Templates

edit

Miscellaneous

edit

Hinduism Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

edit


Islam

edit

Ilgar Ibrahimoglu

edit
Ilgar Ibrahimoglu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article with no encyclopedic value and for PR purposes only. Redivy (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim privilege

edit
Muslim privilege (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page appears to be highly contrived or synth, if not mainly OR as a topic. The sources that are readily accessible do not appear to use the term that is the page's title, and the page reads like an essay on what its creator thought should be a topic, rather than what the sources say is a topic. The creator was incidentally blocked in December for disruptive editing and CIR issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apostate Prophet

edit
Apostate Prophet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the given sources are reliable (YouTube, Reddit, etc.), so nothing to contribute to WP:GNG in any way. A quick WP:BEFORE only gives an interview to Jewish News Syndicate (primary, doesn't count for notability) and a report on one of his presentations by edhat.com. I am not sure whether that last source is reliable, but it doesn't seem to be enough for GNG either way. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is just no reliable sources even close to providing notability for this subject. No evidence of GNG whatsoever. Thismess (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baitul Muqeet Mosque, Auckland

edit
Baitul Muqeet Mosque, Auckland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnable to find any actual coverage of the mosque beyond the story regarding the opening. A lot of search results come up with it but it just seems to be used as a back drop for articles talking about islam/mosques in New Zealand. Article can be redirected to Manurewa#Religion where it is mentioned. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Per Nurg's comment above. Alexeyevitch(talk) 07:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M. M. Akbar

edit
AfDs for this article:
M. M. Akbar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person is not notable. The reference provided are only of some news, that too 'times of india' mentioning he is involved in a criminal case. His name itself came into the news just because he is accused involved in some criminal illegal activities. clearly fails natability. Also the references are arabnews and http://www.muhammmadnabi.info which is self published Aparamoorthy (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala

edit
Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no WP:RELIABILITY, Most of the sources given here are their YouTube channel links, sources are self-published, clearly fails WP:GNG. Thank you! Spworld2 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang

edit
Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating both Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang and Panglima Bandahala for deletion. Created by the same editor, they appear to be based entirely on the blog posts of one person (with very similar text) and then refbombed with sources that aren't about them.

Bundled nomination for:

Hello, and thank you for your feedback regarding the articles on Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang and Panglima Bandahala.
I understand the concerns raised about the sources and the structure of the articles. However, it is important to emphasize that these figures are significant historical personalities within the Bangsamoro narrative, and there are credible resources beyond the initial blog posts cited that provide detailed accounts of their lives, contributions, and the broader struggles of the Bangsamoro people. These articles aim to highlight an important part of Philippine and Islamic history that has often been neglected.
The representation of Bangsamoro history on platforms like Wikipedia is vital for the preservation and recognition of their culture, traditions, and the ongoing struggles for identity and autonomy. The information available about Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang and Panglima Bandahala contributes to understanding the complexities of the Bangsamoro's past, including their resistance and leadership. These contributions deserve to be documented and made accessible as part of Wikipedia's mission to share knowledge.
I am committed to revising and improving the articles to meet Wikipedia’s standards and address the current issues regarding source quality and notability. Ensuring that historically marginalized figures are properly represented on Wikipedia not only preserves cultural heritage but also educates a global audience about these important narratives.
Thank you for considering these points, and I look forward to contributing to the discussion constructively.
To address the issues raised, here are some steps we can take to improve the articles:
Strengthen Source Quality: We can work on finding and incorporating more reliable, secondary sources that directly discuss these individuals, ensuring that the information meets Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability and verifiability.
Refine the Content: The articles can be reorganized and rewritten to align with Wikipedia’s style and structure standards, removing any promotional or subjective language and focusing strictly on verifiable facts.
Expand Historical Context: Adding more historical context about the Bangsamoro struggle, the role of traditional leaders, and their impact on local and national history can provide readers with a better understanding of the significance of these figures.
Community Collaboration: I welcome any guidance from experienced editors on how best to refine these articles. Collaborative efforts can ensure that the content is accurate, neutral, and informative.
By improving rather than deleting these articles, we not only preserve the history and culture of the Bangsamoro people but also contribute to a more diverse and inclusive representation of global history on Wikipedia, aligning with its mission of spreading knowledge.
Best regards,
Suficalcaluang
please refer to:
https://www.scribd.com/document/508811524/WITH-THE-BRAVEST-The-Untold-Story-of-the-Sulu-Freedom-Fighters-of-World-War-II
https://medium.com/@calhussin96/sayyid-captain-kalingalan-caluang-a-hero-of-wwii-and-champion-of-the-bangsamoro-people-53f9c0cf82d4
for questions on the writer:
Dr. Calingalan Hussin Caluang, MPH
Pioneer and Founding member of SALAAM-AdZU
Sunni, Ash’ari in Aqeeda, Shafi’i in Fiqh, Practitioner of Ilmuh Kamaasan(Bangsamoro Spirituality, Culture and Tradition)
Lineage Father Side: Calingalan Hussin Caluang
son of Former OIC Governor(1996) of Sulu Sayyid Sharif Al Hassan Caluang(Practitioner of Ilmuh Kamaasan, With Ijazah in the 41 Spiritual Orders/Tariqa in Sunni Islam)
son of Sayyid Sharif Hji Yahya Caluang (Elder Brother of Sayyid Al Hussein Caluang who was the MNLF Field Marshal and MNLF Top 90)
son of Sayyid Sharif Captain Kalingalan “Apuh Inggal” Caluang (First commander of the famed Combat Company of the Sulu Area Command and recipient of the Bronze Star Medal, Cousin of Sgt. Imam Marajukin L. Ahad, Cousin of Hj Ayyub Mammah son of Panglima Mammah son of Panglima Mangummah/Sakadudukan son of Sultan Muhammad Jamalul A’zam I)
son of Sayyid Sharif Caluang
son of Sayyid Sharif Panglima Bandahala (Right Hand and Relative of Sultan Jamalul Kiram II)
son of Sayyid Sharif Satya Munuh(famed as the Awliya/Saint of Tandah Sulu,respected relative of the Sultan and also said to be the Uncle of the Sultan in his time, relative of the hero of Sabah Paduka Datu Muhammad Salleh)
son of Sayyid Sharif Kasim/Qasim(Arab of Hadhrami Descent, tracing back his Lineage to the 7 Sunni Sufi Missionaries who brought Islam to the Philippines: Tuan Mashaykha,Shariful Hashim,Karim Makhdum, Tuan Maqbalu, Balfaki Alawi, some of the Wali Songo of Indonesia)
Lineage Mother Side: Calingala Hussin Caluang son of Marlene Tuando Hussin daughter of Sayyid-Sharif Usman Hashim Hussin(Descendant of the Sayyid-Sharif/Salip of Patikul, related to the Sayyid-Sharif Sarajan Family)
Note: Sharif is an Arabic title denoting descent from Imam Hassan bin Ali alayhimus salam, while Sayyid denotes descent from Imam Hussain bin Ali alayhimus salam. Both are descendants and grandsons of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).
Muqaddam Mutlaq(Authorized Representative) of the Tijaniyyah Tariqa:
Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Dahiru Usman Bauchi
(Grandshayh of Tijani Tariqa in Nigeria,Deputy chair of the Fatwa Committee of the Supreme Council Of Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) in Nigeria)
Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Imam Salah El Din Al Tijani Al Hasani
(Grandshaykh of Tijani Tariqa in Egypt, Polymath Islamic Scholar,Professor of Medicine at the Faculty Of Medicine Kasr Al Ainy of Cairo)
Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Mouhamadou Mahy Cisse
(Director of Studies at the African American Islamic Institute)
Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) in teaching, transmitting, spiritual formation of the 41 Spiritual Orders(Tariqa plural:Turuq ) of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah
Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) in the Science of Authenticating,Validating and Preserving Genealogy of the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam from the Naqib al-Ashraf (نقيب الأشراف: "Office of the Overseer of the Nobles" or "Chief of the Nobles") of Turkey and Algeria
Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi(author of Refuting ISIS: A Rebuttal Of Its Religious And Ideological Foundations)
Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Ali Gomaa(Former Grand Mufti of Egypt)
Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri(Founder of Minhaj-ul-Quran International and Pakistan Awami Tehreek, author of Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings)
Affiliated with the Naqshbandi Tariqa and with Ijazah(Permission) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Muhammad Adil Rabbani Qaddasallahu Sirrahu
(Grandshaykh of the Naqshbandi Tariqa Worldwide )
Affiliated with the Qadiriyya Tariqa and with Ijazah(Permission) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Hashimuddin Gaylani
(Grandshaykh of the Qadiriyyah Tariqa Worldwide)
Affiliated with the Shadhiliyya Tariqa and with with Ijazah(Permission) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Dr. Nizar Jamili
(Shadhili Qadiri Tariqa under Shaykh As Sayyid Hazim Abu Ghazalah the Mufti and Head of the Jam-e-Yatu Darul Quran institution, Jordan)
Affiliated with the Rifai’iyyah Tariqa and with Ijazah(Permission) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Fawaz Al-Tabaa Al-Rifai Al-Hasani
(Member of the Association of Scholars of Ahrar al-Sham in Syria, Chairman of the Genealogy Investigation Committee in the Al-Sada Al-Ashraf Foundation in Syria)
Affiliated with the Chishtiyyah Tariqa and with Ijazah(Permission) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Ambar Chishti
(Chairman at Moinuddin Foundation, Ambassador of Peace at Institute of Peace and Development or INSPAD)
Affiliated with the Muridiyyah Tariqa and with Ijazah(Permission) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Bara Falilou Mbacke Qaddasallahu Sirrahu
(Shaykh of the Muridiyyah Tariqa, CEO of Shaykh Ahmadu Bamba Foundation, Head of Shariah Department African Institute of Islamic Finance) Suficalcaluang (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you using AI (e.g. Chat GPT) to assist you in writing this? Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for your feedback regarding the articles on Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang and Panglima Bandahala.
I understand the concerns raised about the sources and the structure of the articles. However, it is important to emphasize that these figures are significant historical personalities within the Bangsamoro narrative, and there are credible resources beyond the initial blog posts cited that provide detailed accounts of their lives, contributions, and the broader struggles of the Bangsamoro people. These articles aim to highlight an important part of Philippine and Islamic history that has often been neglected.
The representation of Bangsamoro history on platforms like Wikipedia is vital for the preservation and recognition of their culture, traditions, and the ongoing struggles for identity and autonomy. The information available about Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang and Panglima Bandahala contributes to understanding the complexities of the Bangsamoro's past, including their resistance and leadership. These contributions deserve to be documented and made accessible as part of Wikipedia's mission to share knowledge.
I am committed to revising and improving the articles to meet Wikipedia’s standards and address the current issues regarding source quality and notability. Ensuring that historically marginalized figures are properly represented on Wikipedia not only preserves cultural heritage but also educates a global audience about these important narratives.
Thank you for considering these points, and I look forward to contributing to the discussion constructively.
To address the issues raised, here are some steps we can take to improve the articles:
Strengthen Source Quality: We can work on finding and incorporating more reliable, secondary sources that directly discuss these individuals, ensuring that the information meets Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability and verifiability.
Refine the Content: The articles can be reorganized and rewritten to align with Wikipedia’s style and structure standards, removing any promotional or subjective language and focusing strictly on verifiable facts.
Expand Historical Context: Adding more historical context about the Bangsamoro struggle, the role of traditional leaders, and their impact on local and national history can provide readers with a better understanding of the significance of these figures.
Community Collaboration: I welcome any guidance from experienced editors on how best to refine these articles. Collaborative efforts can ensure that the content is accurate, neutral, and informative.
By improving rather than deleting these articles, we not only preserve the history and culture of the Bangsamoro people but also contribute to a more diverse and inclusive representation of global history on Wikipedia, aligning with its mission of spreading knowledge.
Best regards,
Suficalcaluang Suficalcaluang (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what this long wall of text is trying to explain, but doesn't show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, that's why I tag it for unreliable source. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk)

(contribs) 03:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also will add the potential of WP:COI and the fact that the article is using various WP:PEACOCK wordings Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeju Islamic Cultural Center

edit
Jeju Islamic Cultural Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to notability. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching in the Korean language I can find this Jeju Ilbo article: [15], but it's only a one-sentence mention. Can't find much else. seefooddiet (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant media coverage or resources --Loewstisch (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan

edit
Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources that discuss this book, merely listings. This incomplete hit on Google Books says... something about the book but I can't tell if it's any longer than a sentence. No sigcov. The past AfD was closed as keep because standards were different in 2006, the author being notable does not help. Redirect to Abul A'la Maududi? The one hiccup is this was initially published not in English, but I cannot figure out what title, so I could not search to see if there were sources in its native language. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Islam, and Pakistan. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Abul A'la Maududi unless notability can be demonstrated with Urdu sources. Interestingly the Urdu wikipedia article on Maududi doesnt list this work in the list of works by him, so I wonder if it's an english-language editorial collection of translated essays and articles rather than a single work by him. Mccapra (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Islamic Law and Constitution, rewrite and keep. This book has been translated into English from a language not written in Roman script, so a search in English alone will not suffice for BEFORE. We need to know how to transliterate the title into the original script before we can dispute its notability. This seems to be a reprint of part of, and chapter 2 ("The Islamic Law: Its Introduction in Pakistan") of, a book called [The] Islamic Law and Constitution [16]. This book (see another edition, which may or may not have the chapter: [17]) seems to have a lot of citations (80+ in GScholar), and numerous editions, reprints and translations, and reviews in English [18] and other commentary in English (see eg Google Books). His best known book: [19]. There is also a section "Some Opinions about the First Edition" in a section "Islamic Law and Constitution" [20] which quotes book reviews (1) from J.N.D. Anderson in "International Affairs", London (which is here) (2) from "The Dawn", Karachi (3) from "The Hindustan Times", Dehli and (4) from "The Hindu", Madras. Seems to satisfy TBK, GNG and criteria 1 and (judging from the article on the author) criteria 5 of NBOOK. [We should also have an article on the bibliography of islamic law: see [21] and numerous periodical articles.] James500 (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @James500 This is not a reprint - you can find copies of both books online, they have a completely different table of contents and contents. It is not the one chapter of that book, it is a full other book with entirely different contents. I oppose any move because from looking at it it appears to be an entirely different book.
    Per Mccapra above I think this is just a translated collection of individual essays with no direct Urdu equivalent. It has nothing to do with the other book. If someone wants to write an article on that book then they can but this is not the same thing. This one has 0 sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can see, at least some of the text of the 1960 English translation of "Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan" appears to be taken verbatim from chapter 2 of the 1955 English translation of "Islamic Law and Constitution". To me, the 1960 book looks like a rehash of part of the 1955 book. There are bibliographic sources that say that the books "Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan" and a number of other apparently derivative books (such as "Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State" and "First Principles of the Islamic State") are "A Part of Islamic Law and Constitution": [22]. James500 (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @James500 There are plenty of edited collections that have content similarities with one another, with single chapters/essays being duplicated. Just because a work of one author is included in two collections does not make them the same collection. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inna Lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un

edit
Inna Lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Exactly what a dictionary definition is, exactly what Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOTDICT. My prod was deleted by a guest user. SJD Willoughby (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a second, unbolded Keep comment so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this phrase, along with other ones such as the basmala, tasbih, etc, should just be thrown on Wiktionary. There's a table on the Dhikr page with commonly used phrases, so we could just swap out those links for the Wiktionary links. AmrAlWatan(🗣️|📝) 02:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EvilxFish's argument. Abo Yemen✉ 09:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EvilxFish. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (vote changed Sept 8 2024). If the above editors voting Keep want to write a detailed article and submit it for AfC or NPP review they should. Currently it is just a dictionary entry, and that is both inappropriate and not notable.Ldm1954 (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of notability is not decided by the current state of the article, rather the inherent notability of the topic itself. Meaning that whereas I do agree that the current state of the article is dire, this does not affect notability or worthiness of inclusion into the encyclopedia. I personally would struggle to edit this article as I believe a lot of the information for this topic would be found in languages I cannot read or speak but I do not feel it unreasonable to believe such literature exists, based on what I have searched and seen online about this phrases usage. Assuming the comment by @BlueOtaku8000 earlier is correct, I would support renaming it to a more concise title though as a separate issue. EvilxFish (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ldm1954, Soft Deletion is not possible if there are arguments to Keep an article. Soft Deletes are like PRODs they are for uncontroversial deletions. If there are editors arguing for a Keep outcome, then the deletion is clearly not uncontroversial. Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I don't (yet) know all details as well as I probably should. I will remove the Soft in my vote. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect The phrase undeniably holds cultural significance, notable being more than a mere expression, as emphasised by EvilxFish. As a balance between the two views, it could be merged and redirected to Al-Baqara.  samee  converse  09:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion


Others


Judaism topics

edit


Sikhism

edit

Battle of Anandpur (1703)

edit
Battle of Anandpur (1703) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no references, and it's an incomplete stub, need I say more? Noorullah (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Noorullah (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: ~150 words of coverage here, ~250 words of coverage here, 7 paragraphs of coverage here (p. 112-114), and there is actually a lot more that I can't access on Google Books. C F A 💬 17:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CFA One of the sources you cited from's author is not a historian, they don't follow WP:RS/WP:HISTRS and aren't scholarship.
    For example: Triloki Nath Dhar -- '...He graduated in science from Punjab in 1948 and received a degree in Indology from Sharda Peeth Research Centre, Srinagar, as approved by Dr Tuci of Rome." ... "...Mr Dhar is an author of short romances, tales, and collections of essays, as well, a theory of Cosmological Physics which he had included in a ‘romantic fiction’ novel which was apparently confirmed fourteen years later by a US space satellite’s discovery of a particularly massive cloud of gas and dust."
    Nath Dhar is not a historian, but an author.
    The other sources seem to check out however. Noorullah (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CFA, I will comment on the Surjit Singh Gandhi source later after looking into it, but the third source you linked (from the Punjab Digital Library) does not actually make any sort of mention between a 1703 battle in Anandpur beyond "Hostilities again broke out in 1703 as the Guru had greatly increased his military strength and even extended his territory at the expense of the hill chiefs." From then on, the book's content is actually referring to this article [23], in which a joint siege by the Mughals and the hill chiefs compelled Gobind Singh to vacate Anandpur under allegedly false pretenses. It then goes to talk about this article's content-[24] and so and so forth. It's a bit confusing because some sources vary a bit in reporting the dates of battles, but rest assured the book's content (by Bakshish Singh Nijjar, p.112-114) is already covered on Wikipedia. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And as Noorullah mentioned, Triloki Nath Dhar's book is not a RS; it's a self published trade book by someone who has not authored any serious peer reviewed work-[25]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sikhism, India, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Religion&oldid=1244671328"