Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion

Shortcuts

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:

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.
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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Religion

Black Muslims

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was a disambigutation until recently, when someone removed it as a disamb, saying a valid broad concept article could be written about it. Afterwards, I tagged it as unreferenced, and one reference was added. I dispute the fact that this is notable as a broad concept and think it should be restored as a disamb. The concept of "Black Muslims" is not relevant outside of these specific examples, and Black as a racial category is not universal outside of the US (which we have a separate article on in relation to Islam). PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion, it would be better to just restore the disambiguation via a manual revert if your argument is to restore the disambiguation rather than delete the page, or instead start a discussion about that on the talk page pinging the relevant user(s). Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WaddlesJP13 The question is more the notability of the overarching category of "Black Muslims". If it is notable, this can be kept, and notability is a question for AfD. A second editor also edited with a summary that suggested this wasn't a proper disamb. If these weren't considerations I would have simply reverted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: Technically, whether the consensus is that the topic is notable and should remain as-is or that it is not notable and the disambiguation should be restored, either way the outcome will be keep, so I am not sure if Articles for deletion is the correct venue—that is unless you believe yourself that it makes sense for it the be deleted entirely (or, someone has their own problems with the page and suggests it be deleted). In complicated cases like these that are somewhat reminiscent of a WP:HIJACK (not that the topic was changed, but an established dab page was effectively removed and replaced by an article), I have just gone with making the WP:BOLD move to go back some revisions and restore the page to how it was before it became a problem. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WaddlesJP13 When a redirection is repeatedly reverted you have to go to AfD, and I consider the fact that multiple people thought the disamb was a problem to be a similar situation to that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't have to go to AfD. That is merely a choice someone my take. Best practice is to use the talk page. Why is that not being used? Thincat (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People don't watch disamb pages and no one would ever respond. And yes you can't just keep reverting someone over and over. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't a disambiguation page and it wasn't when you nominated it. However you certainly shouldn't repeatedly revert anyone. Thincat (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why you take things to AfD. Should this be a disamb? Because as it is now, it is an improperly formatted one, or an entirely non-notable topic that should be deleted, which is also a problem. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after changing it to be a redirect to African-American Muslims, preserving the history for future reference. As a disambiguation page "Black Muslims" does not target appropriately and has few (I suspect no} suitable targets.[1] The African-American Muslims article seems to think "Black Muslims" redirects to it but I haven't found a time when it did. This target article has problems in itself but it is quite good enough to work on (suggest by removing or severely pruning the "Notable African-American Muslims" section, etc.). Category:African-American Muslims could suffice for now. However, my editorial opinions here should carry no weight over editing at that page (and its talk). The idea that "Black Muslims" is not a notable topic (think Malcolm X or Muhammad Ali) is, well, curious, but we need to clearly distinguish between African-Americans who are/were Muslims and those that are, or used to be, members of a select group of movements. Thincat (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thincat I oppose this as a redirect, because a sizable portion of the "black muslim" mentions in the US are not about actual black muslims, but about the NoI/NRM adjacent types. I do not think there is a primary topic here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A more clear disamb would be between African-American Muslims and Nation of Islam, which altogether are probably most of the intended traffic from this page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with African-American Muslims. — Maile (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is (i.e. a disambiguation page). This term has been and continues to be used with multiple meanings. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kalin (Hinduism)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:V; after searching extensively, I found no reliable sources verifying the existence of 'Kalin' in the Rigveda or Hindu mythology. Likely WP:OR. Nxcrypto Message 07:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology, Religion, and Hinduism. Nxcrypto Message 07:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NXcrypto,

I agree that this article should be marked for deletion based on its lack of coverage as shown in WP:SIGCOV Chilicave (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the article originally began as a hoax, as evident from its initial version: [2]. Nxcrypto Message 13:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religion Proposed deletions

Religion Templates

Atheism

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Buddhism

Templates

Miscellaneous

Christianity

Missionary Families of Christ

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page heavily edited by a user who was blocked for promotional editing. Sources found in article are mostly primary and these appear to have been added for promotional purposes. Notability also seems to be lacking, and there is no evidence that this subject warrants an encyclopedic article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Philippines. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing in the article isn't sufficient, and this is about all I could find [3]. Gsearch is only showing primary sources, their website, a facebook page. Nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The article relies heavily on primary sources, and only blogs and/or non-independent sources that cover this community are available. As Oaktree b said, nothing is available that can prove its notability. AstrooKai (Talk) 08:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob David

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTE, subject of article only has two sources discussing his life Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, searching the subject on Google only brings up two major sources regarding his biography, and searching his name in Farsi doesn't seem to bring other results as well. I previously requested a deletion for the article based on this criteria. Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Iran, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:ANYBIO, the reference in Iranica is sufficient to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. I also found this from the Assyrian Cultural Foundation. More appears easily found using the Google search "Jacob David Assyrian Chicago" sans quotation marks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I bet further print resources are available, per this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of a person being notable enough for a Wikipedia article, does it matter more the quality of the sources, or the quantity available to write on them? If it's just the above I'm sure I or another editor can work to enhance the article with more information, but I'm gonna keep the deletion discussion open. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's borderline based on the sources, which are pretty thin unless, as Pbritti notes, there are print sources not currently accessible, but I see a bare GNG pass with the Encyclopedia Iranica biography and this article at the Assyrian Cultural Foundation. (It's not an ANYBIO pass, since Encyclopedia Iranica isn't a national directory of biography, but it is SIGCOV and thus contributes to GNG.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Church

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure why this minor group of nuns has it's own article but I cannot find secondary sources covering them. My searches turn up more information on a Ugandan group with the same name. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is WP:SIGCOV of this order in the independent Catholic outlets National Catholic Reporter, Catholic World Report and National Catholic Register, as well as in the Spokane Spokesman-Review (here and here. It passes WP:GNG. (As for the identically named orders in Uganda and Ghana, if someone gets around to creating pages for them, we can move this article and use the current title for disambiguation.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources identified above that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darel Chase (bishop)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable clergy person. Sources that mention Chase are limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (his personal website, a blog from a bishop in his church, his church's official website x2 x3 x4, x5, his church's international communion website, and corporate documents on the KY secretary of state's site); and an apparent WP:SPS WordPress blog. Several sources do not even mention Chase at all ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]); these are contributing to WP:SYNTH to draw connections about the subject not present in the sources. I found nothing qualifying in a WP:BEFORE search. Finally, let me address WP:BISHOPS since I am guessing it will come up. While AfD participants have debated the applicability of BISHOPS (and I have generally accepted it as a quasi-guideline since WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES align with it, even though it's not a P&G), this bishop does not even qualify under BISHOPS. The church he leads is a micro-denomination that is not part of the Anglican Communion or recognized by any of its member churches. Moreover, Chase is the pastor of an individual congregation, and bishops in this category are per CLERGYOUTCOMES not typically found notable by virtue of their office. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Kentucky. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oh man, that's an interesting character. I'm seeing a remarkably marginal case for notability here, but not enough for me to !vote one way or the other. Dclemens1971, do you mind pinging me at my talk page if I don't get back to this by next weekend? I would like to contribute to this discussion, but it looks like too deep a rabbit hole for this workweek. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti I will try to remember! Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an interesting character, I'd say. He does definitely have a marginal case of notability, so I'll vote for it to be kept. And, isn't it a bit biased to call it a micro-denomination? It is a Christian denomination nonetheless, regardless of its size. It is also quite clear that he is not within the Anglican Communion. Is this a publishing house for authorized religions, or an encyclopedia? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's completely unbiased and reasonable to call it a "micro-denomination". It's own website parish directory lists just four churches. While another part of its website claims 43 churches (scroll down), there's no validation of this. Chase's own diocese appears to have just three churches. Two other dioceses (Diocese of St. Ignatius Loyola Diocese of the North-East appear to have just one church each, and a fourth (Diocese of Pelican Bay) has no website with information. And WP:BISHOPS and WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, to the extent they are relied upon, specify "Anglican Communion" -- while I might prefer a different dividing line, I didn't make that up. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP, WP:NOTFB, and WP:SIGCOV. You can't just call yourself a bishop. You have to be ordained in apostolic succession. WP:BISHOP is a guideline that only creates a presumption of existence that, like WP:NPOL, sources must exist somewhere, for bishops of major denominations. BISHOP doesn't necessarily assume notability; it just says how to set naming conventions. There is a different outcome guideline here: WP:CLERGY:
People listed as bishops in Pentecostal denominations may fail AFDs unless they have significant reliable third-party coverage. Clerics who hold the title bishop but only serve an individual parish or congregation are typically considered the same as local pastors or parish priests.
The subject was, after lawsuits, left with a single congregation and fails significant coverage; all but two of the sources are not independent of the subject: one is about how secular and canon courts returned church property and doesn't even mention him by name and the other is a brief corporate listing. That is far below significant coverage, almost a velleity of verification. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs a little more time to come to a clearer consensus. Some excellent points are being made though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I'm sensitive to TheLionHasSeen's argument, this is a remarkably small denomination that's one of the hundreds that have a bishop-to-laity ratio smaller than my school's teacher-to-student ratio. As such, I'm not seeing a case for presumed notability. Recent coverage of a local scandal by Dreher notwithstanding, there is not particularized SIGCOV here that contributes to GNG. If there's something I'm not privy to that suggests notability might be established soon, I would not be opposed to an AtD like draftification. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCMR

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short article; no sources; notable only on local level. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Christianity, and Iowa. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to List of radio stations in Iowa, where this station is mentioned. Not seeing any evidence it passes WP:GNG or any other applicable guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The new sources seem fairly routine, but with them added (and in the interest of consensus), I have no strong objection to a keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've given this a shot. It's not a very interesting station for expansion because its format has never changed and the articles on it in the local newspaper run on the puffy side, but at least we have a start date and station history and references. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: If nothing else, the "no sources" issue appears to have been resolved with the newspaper sourcing (and being a short article is not necessarily a reason to delete in and of itself, at least when improvements are possible). The weakness is because this is still more of an "edge" case, as it were, under the current tighter inclusion standards (compared to when the article was created in 2008). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the reliable sources references added to the article since nomination, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Sweden Yearly Meeting (via WP:PROD on 6 November 2024)

Categories for discussion

Christian religious leaders: further follow-up required, see Category talk:Religious leaders#Clergy categories

Miscellaneous

Hinduism

Hinduism in Belize

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic as whole fails WP:GNG, the population itself is not significant making only 0.2% of population and no reliable sources treat it as a notable topic. This was initially redirected but then someone opposed the redirect. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Religion in Belize. The latter article is short and can easily accommodate a section in Hinduism. While at it, merge other minor religions, like Islam in Belize, redirect Buddhism in Belize). Викидим (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Belize. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no secondary sources. We just deleted a bunch of articles about Jews in X small country, so this is a fair comparison. No objection to a redirect. Bearian (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or merge to Religion in Belize. There's not really much here to merge, but it's best for the reader for that search term to take them somewhere in the (admittedly unlikely) event that somebody types "Hinduism in Belize" into the search bar. Religion in Belize makes the most sense as the target article. Plenty of room for expansion there, and not enough here to justify this article being split off from that article. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Barbados

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic as whole fails WP:GNG, the population itself is not significant making only 0.46% of population and no reliable sources treat it as a notable topic. This was initially redirected but then someone opposed the redirect. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Barbados. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no secondary sources. We just deleted a bunch of articles about Jews in X small country, so this is a fair comparison. Bearian (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC) No objection to a redirect. Bearian (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kalin (Hinduism)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:V; after searching extensively, I found no reliable sources verifying the existence of 'Kalin' in the Rigveda or Hindu mythology. Likely WP:OR. Nxcrypto Message 07:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology, Religion, and Hinduism. Nxcrypto Message 07:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NXcrypto,

I agree that this article should be marked for deletion based on its lack of coverage as shown in WP:SIGCOV Chilicave (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the article originally began as a hoax, as evident from its initial version: [12]. Nxcrypto Message 13:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavishya Malika Puran

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose taking action on the article "Bhavishya Malika Puran" as it solely presents propaganda spread by news channels for financial gain. Context: The article is highly disputed, and its accuracy as a translation of the original Bhavishya Malika remains unverified. News channels have extensively covered this topic, primarily repeating the claims made by the Pandit. Unfortunately, the errors in this translated book, which appears to be motivated by financial interests, have gone unchallenged. Having carefully examined the book and its issues, I recommend one of the following actions: 1. Archive the article until credible evidence supporting its claims is provided. Or 2. Add a disclaimer to the article stating that it is a controversial issue and establish a Reception section to present a balanced view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharavela Deva (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Hinduism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator didn't provide a valid reason for article deletion. However, the subject passes WP:NBOOK. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the 5 criteria did it pass for English Wikipedia:Notability_(books)? Would Hindi Wikipedia be more appropriate?Some of the sources appear to be solely in Hindi and/or are interviews, quotes, promotional, or blatanly state that the publisher takes no responsibility: "The above information is based on various sources. Webdunia does not officially confirm it." Alegh (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Miscellaneous

Hinduism Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Islam

Muslim migrations to Ottoman Palestine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article started by Icewhiz sock. Article is taken straight from Zionist propaganda: Palestinians are "recent" immigrants to Israel/Palestine, when Jewish immigration was far larger Huldra (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Huldra (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if there is a POV bias in this page, that should be resolved by editing. If the topic is notable, which it appears to be, that wouldn't be a valid deletion rationale. Has sources, and ineligible for G5 since other contributions were made after the sock. Andre🚐 00:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. "Article is Zionist propaganda" is not a valid deletion argument. Specifically, according to WP:SKCRIT, this is a nomination that is clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree their wording is unnecessarily combative, WP:G5 is still a valid reason to bring this here & I'm unsure how it could be considered an "attempt to end an editing dispute." Who is the editing dispute between? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Butterscotch Beluga: As Andre said, the page has substantial edits from one other person and doesn't qualify for G5. The editing dispute is that Huldra is unhappy with the article's content. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Demographic history of Palestine (region). I don't think the wording of this proposal was necessary, but regardless, outside of being mostly written by a blocked sock, this article feels like undetailed retreading of already existing articles. It relies too much on the writings of 1 author, David Grossman, with 5/16 sources written by him + as far as I can tell online, he also had a hand in Zvi Ilan's 'Turkmens, Circassians, and Bosnians in Northern Sharon", though I could be misreading that. It also contains content unrelated to the topic such as Druze communities & settlement to areas that weren't a part of Ottoman Palestine like Damascus, Ajloun, and the Hauran. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Butterscotch Beluga: What about merging with Arab migrations to the Levant? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That'd actually be better. I had originally proposed Demographic history of Palestine (region) because I thought it was also being merged with Arab migrations to the Levant, but I now see that proposal isn't gaining traction. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arab migrations to the Levant. There was nothing special about Palestine in the Ottoman period as far as Muslim population movements were concerned. The I-P conflict is the only reason for the focus on Palestine, and that focus creates the misleading impression that Palestine was special when it wasn't. This article also fails to give a balanced account as there is no attempt to place migrations in context or weigh their significance relative to the existing population. Zero^talk 08:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The content could be suitably added to Arab migrations to the Levant or Demographic history of Palestine (region). Richard Nevell (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qazi Nisar Ahmed

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources are either passing mentions or fail WP:SIGCOV Axedd (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Muslims

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was a disambigutation until recently, when someone removed it as a disamb, saying a valid broad concept article could be written about it. Afterwards, I tagged it as unreferenced, and one reference was added. I dispute the fact that this is notable as a broad concept and think it should be restored as a disamb. The concept of "Black Muslims" is not relevant outside of these specific examples, and Black as a racial category is not universal outside of the US (which we have a separate article on in relation to Islam). PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion, it would be better to just restore the disambiguation via a manual revert if your argument is to restore the disambiguation rather than delete the page, or instead start a discussion about that on the talk page pinging the relevant user(s). Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WaddlesJP13 The question is more the notability of the overarching category of "Black Muslims". If it is notable, this can be kept, and notability is a question for AfD. A second editor also edited with a summary that suggested this wasn't a proper disamb. If these weren't considerations I would have simply reverted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: Technically, whether the consensus is that the topic is notable and should remain as-is or that it is not notable and the disambiguation should be restored, either way the outcome will be keep, so I am not sure if Articles for deletion is the correct venue—that is unless you believe yourself that it makes sense for it the be deleted entirely (or, someone has their own problems with the page and suggests it be deleted). In complicated cases like these that are somewhat reminiscent of a WP:HIJACK (not that the topic was changed, but an established dab page was effectively removed and replaced by an article), I have just gone with making the WP:BOLD move to go back some revisions and restore the page to how it was before it became a problem. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WaddlesJP13 When a redirection is repeatedly reverted you have to go to AfD, and I consider the fact that multiple people thought the disamb was a problem to be a similar situation to that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't have to go to AfD. That is merely a choice someone my take. Best practice is to use the talk page. Why is that not being used? Thincat (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People don't watch disamb pages and no one would ever respond. And yes you can't just keep reverting someone over and over. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't a disambiguation page and it wasn't when you nominated it. However you certainly shouldn't repeatedly revert anyone. Thincat (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why you take things to AfD. Should this be a disamb? Because as it is now, it is an improperly formatted one, or an entirely non-notable topic that should be deleted, which is also a problem. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after changing it to be a redirect to African-American Muslims, preserving the history for future reference. As a disambiguation page "Black Muslims" does not target appropriately and has few (I suspect no} suitable targets.[13] The African-American Muslims article seems to think "Black Muslims" redirects to it but I haven't found a time when it did. This target article has problems in itself but it is quite good enough to work on (suggest by removing or severely pruning the "Notable African-American Muslims" section, etc.). Category:African-American Muslims could suffice for now. However, my editorial opinions here should carry no weight over editing at that page (and its talk). The idea that "Black Muslims" is not a notable topic (think Malcolm X or Muhammad Ali) is, well, curious, but we need to clearly distinguish between African-Americans who are/were Muslims and those that are, or used to be, members of a select group of movements. Thincat (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thincat I oppose this as a redirect, because a sizable portion of the "black muslim" mentions in the US are not about actual black muslims, but about the NoI/NRM adjacent types. I do not think there is a primary topic here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A more clear disamb would be between African-American Muslims and Nation of Islam, which altogether are probably most of the intended traffic from this page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with African-American Muslims. — Maile (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is (i.e. a disambiguation page). This term has been and continues to be used with multiple meanings. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hearth Party

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This political party has sources, but seems completely trivial within politics. Ran in the 2024 Turkish local elections and gathered 2000 of 46 million votes. When reaching such an incredibly low level of relevance in politics, it is of no encyclopedic interest which hand gestures they like or how they view Atatürk. Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think it should be marged and redirected, into a new 'Hearth Party' section on the Ottoman Hearths article as it is the 'political wing' of that group, both are stubs and there seems to be some considerable overlap already. I don't read turkish (and google translate struggles!) but most of the sources seem to talk about them together. JeffUK 10:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like PROMO for a low-polling party. Hand signals and how they see history is a good half of the article, which seems like fluffy padding added to bulk-up a otherwise thin article. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ottoman mosques in İzmir

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is links to 5 articles enough for a list? If so I think the mosques without articles should be cited Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Lists, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either List of mosques commissioned by the Ottoman dynasty or List of mosques in Turkey. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like this will likely close as Merge but is there a preference for a Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 11#Category:New Christians (conversos), proposed renaming of Category:New Christians (conversos) to either: ALT1 Category:New Christians (conversos) to Category:New Christians (moriscos and conversos) or ALT2 Category:New Christians (conversos) to Category:New Christians (Iberia)

Judaism topics

Sikhism

Miscellaneous