Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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]

Sri Rama Michael Tamm

[edit]
Sri Rama Michael Tamm (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 evidence he meets WP:PROF, none of his academic works turn up in scholar, and no indication he meets any other notability criteria Psychastes (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

72 virgins

[edit]
72 virgins (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 is just an islamophobic WP:POVFORK of Houri and Palestinian suicide attacks with no content whatsoever other than a quote from the book Sunan al-Tirmidhi and an immediate "In popular culture" and an excerpt of the "72 virgins" section of the Palestinian suicide attacks article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the article used to be a disamb page that clearly listed it as a misconception before Closetside decided to change it completely 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://dorar.net/hadith/search?q=%D8%A7%D8%AB%D9%86%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%90+%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%B9%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8E+%D8%B2%D9%88%D8%AC%D8%A9%D9%8B+%D9%85%D9%86+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%90+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%90&searchType=word&st=w&xclude=&rawi%5B%5D=
  • Comment: The perceived legitimacy of the tenet is utterly irrelevant. If sources report on it, including arguing against it, it exists in some form. @Abo Yemen, the link you provided therefore wholly supports that this is an existing concept. Geschichte (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to disamb page: This is clearly a WP:POVFORK and if it weren't for the fact that something useful existed prior to closetside's POV pushing, I'd recommend deleting. As something useful previously existed I'd suggested restoring to that. TarnishedPathtalk 16:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic of 72 virgins as a concept meets WP:GNG and has been the subject of much academic and journalistic WP:SIGCOV over an extended period of time. Any WP:NPOV concerns should be dealt with on the article, but it is notable as a standalone topic. It should absolutely be covered with the appropriate context as a canard. See:
Guardian article on the topic
academic book chapter
explainer in Slate
Extensive use by would-be terrorists covered in reporting and academic literature: [1], [2], [3]. Longhornsg (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't like stereotypes either, but we have lots of articles about them. The tone of the nomination is "I don't like it." That's not a reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so you ignored the fact that this is a WP:POVFORK just because you didn't like how my nom sounded? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, just because there is sufficient coverage it does not mean there should be a standalone page. The material is already covered at Islamophobic trope#72 virgins where it has adequate prose dedicated to it. This page should go back to a disamb. TarnishedPathtalk 11:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The fact that it is a legitimate teaching or not is irrelevant to if it should be deleted or not. We shouldn't be arguing about its Islamic legitimacy in a deletion discussion, it's like wanting to delete Flat Earth because it's not true. If it's not legitimate, this article should be about raising awareness that it is in fact a false teaching being used as a recruitment strategy. Sayuuuto (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, but I'd suggest a WP:TNT due to how it's written. Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 15:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 20:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, btw, the article seems to have something to do with Palestinian suicide attacks, and thus be covered by WP:PIA, doesn't this make non XC users unable to vote here? — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 20:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Cheesedealer: it definitely shouldn't be allowed 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 21:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom Plantbaseddiet (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

God's Revelation to the Human Heart

[edit]
God's Revelation to the Human Heart (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)

Current sources appears to be passing mentions and bookstore descriptions. Both does not count towards WP:GNG, which does not appear to be fulfilled. A WP:BEFORE search also returned no results outside of passing mentions. Nothing in Newspapers.com about the book either.

The book exists, but there is almost no coverage of it by reliable sources outside of passing mentions. Proposing a redirect to the author. Pinging Myckaa, Moriwen for involvement with the failed PROD. Justiyaya 08:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, United States of America, and Alaska. Justiyaya 08:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Seraphim Rose: No standalone notability for this book. The review by Roosh Valizadeh appears on an WP:SPS blog ([4]) and the article in Religion (which is by Lackenby, not Gallaher as stated here) is not a review but a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION. (Works by the English theologian and bishop Kallistos Ware (such as The Inner Kingdom) and the American monk Seraphim Rose (such as his God's Revelation to the Human Heart) are amongst those which periodically come up in conversations.) The book exists, though, so no reason not to redirect the title to the article about its notable author. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nativity of the Virgin Mary Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral, Sterling Heights, Michigan

[edit]
Nativity of the Virgin Mary Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral, Sterling Heights, Michigan (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 building doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. I added the only sources I could find to the article, and the only secondary source with significant coverage is Mactel Australian Macedonian News, which looks tenuously reliable to me. There may be significant coverage in Macedonian language sources. No obvious redirect targets. Suriname0 (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content itself is mostly generic info about the church and a piece of trivia about it. No indication as to why it is relevant in itself, probably best to include information about it in the Macedonian Orthodox Church linked in the article itself. 37.211.69.56 (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would anyone like to reconsider their !votes in light of Dclemens's findings?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. Bragg

[edit]
Mark A. Bragg (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 evidence of notability from independent reliable sources, only from church sources[5]. The only independent sources are about the sad fate of his mother. Fram (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Latter Day Saints, and California. Fram (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BISHOPS and WP:CLERGY as a holder of an inherently notable position of religious leadership. Per the EL here, while a regular Mormon bishop is equivalent to a local pastor, a General Authority Seventy, which Mr. Bragg is, is a much senior position, with a scope easily equivalent to a Bishop in the Roman Catholic or Anglican traditions. As such, we know that appropriate coverage exists, whether or not we can find it and/or agree on whether coverage in LDS sources is independent. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For example SlTrib from earlier this year notes his position as "president of the faith’s North America West Area" which puts him above a Catholic archbishop in terms of adherents, clergy, area, and institutions overseen. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are essays, not policies or guidelines. And the claim that coverage zxists is rather a weak claim for a US BLP, where coverage is normally easy to find if it exists. Fram (talk) 09:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They accurately reflect consensus. Point being that it's a waste of time for us to go digging through looking for stuff that's going to be there somewhere. There's simply no question that he has a ton of coverage from LDS sources which are some degree or another less than completely independent... but discounting all of that is needlessly Procrustean and anti-LDS. Notability has never been a policy, always a guideline, and sticklers for it in such cases can never really explain to me why an encyclopedia with oodles of pop stars, voice actors, etc. would be improved only by removing the leaders of religious denominations that are covered in the religious (non-independent) press, rather than nominally independent pop-culture sources. Jclemens (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you allow articles where all you have are non-independent sources, then there is no way to keep out all spam, vanity, self-promoting individuals and groups, ... A basic principle of Wikipedia is that we reflect and summarise what other reliable, independent sources have written, to get as close as possible to a neutral point of view and independently verified facts. Fram (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure there is. You rely on things like WP:BISHOPS to restrict, for example, bio coverage of major religious figures to the top 1-2% of clergy based on position and importance, rather than title. It's a parallel way to make sure we're not covering every self-promoting, self-declared apostle, but can e.g. cover regionally/nationally important figures. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please reread my last sentence. Fram (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the creator of the article, I concur with Jclemens that Bragg is inherently notable per WP:CLERGY and WP:BISHOPS, being in a position equivalent to a Bishop in Catholicism or Anglicanism and "[being a] high level religious official with a substantial deal of power and autonomy, and they tend to play a substantial role in their local community, including interactions with public officials, the media, etc." PortlandSaint (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fram makes a very compelling argument that the assumption of independent reliable sources existing is problematic. 206.83.99.60 (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2025 (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 keep‎. The rename can be done editorially Star Mississippi 14:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda HaKohen

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Yehuda HaKohen (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 was soft-deleted back in 2020, so that is no longer an option. Did not go through the DRV process. He gets some slight coverage, but not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2025 (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.

Religion Proposed deletions

[edit]

Religion Templates

[edit]


Atheism

[edit]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]


Buddhism

[edit]

Nalanda Institute

[edit]
Nalanda Institute (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 Kompas piece is nice to go towards notability, but the other 3 are all primary sources, and two of those are mere mentions. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, although searching was difficult due to the a similarly named organization for contemplative studies. Onel5969 TT me 14:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shinnyō-ji

[edit]
Shinnyō-ji (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)

Contested redirect without improvement. Currently 2 unreliable and 1 primary source. Searches revealed lots of mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

Templates

[edit]

Miscellaneous

[edit]


Christianity

[edit]

Katelyn MacDonald

[edit]
Katelyn MacDonald (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 seems to be a classic WP:BLP1E; this individual received a burst of viral notability over a couple days in June 2024 for the bell-ringing video. I can't find any independent coverage since that burst of coverage; the only coverage I can find at all is an article from Duke, which is a non-independent source since the subject is an employee of the university chapel. Given that all three provisions of BLP1E are met (the reliable sources cover the person only in relation to a single event, the event itself is non-notable, and the subject remains a low-profile individual), this subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this one-time viral video incident is WP:DUE on that page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Christian School (Morgantown, West Virginia)

[edit]
Trinity Christian School (Morgantown, West Virginia) (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school article, and added a ref. I don't see WP:THREE instances of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, however, and don't think the school meets WP:NCORP, WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Redirect to Morgantown, West Virginia#Private schools is a possibility. Tacyarg (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • At least Weak Keep. Ideally, I'd like to see more in depth coverage from sources from further away, but there's a lot of documentation and enough I could find from other newspapers in the state.
    • "Trinity, St. Francis Schools Expand in Morgantown" (Feb 2006)[6] State Journal, Charleston
    • "Trinity Christian School Breaks Ground on New Wing" (November 2004)[7] Dominion Post
    • Residents Question Trinity Christians Impact (August 2004)[8] Dominion Post
    • "Trinity Christian opens new campus, transportation issues arise"(April 2005)[9] Dominion Post
    • "Trinity Adds Finishing Touches" (August 2005)[10] Dominion Post
    • "Trinity for sale to highest bidder: Bank looking to sell bankrupt Christian school" (May 2010) [11], Dominion Post
    • "Bank wants to sell bankrupt private school in Morgantown"(May 2010) [12], Charleston Gazette
    • "Trinity to keep school: Reaches deal with bank for $5 million" (July 2010) [13] Dominion Post
    • "Prep Sports:: Morgantown Christian school getting ready to tackle football" (Jan 2009) [14]" Charleston Daily Mail
    • More[15][16][17][18][19][20]
There are also hundreds of more routine sports articles, which actually makes it difficult to find the more in depth ones Jahaza (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as private school it will have to pass WP:NORG and I dont see any substantial in depth coverage from multiple independent sources. There is some coverage from a single newspaper but a lot is run of the mill and not in-depth, one single source is not multiple and trivial coverage of sports events does not constitute SIGCOV. --hroest
  • Weak keep - compared with most independent schools, this seems to get a lot of (at least local) media coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Hedman

[edit]
Bruce Hedman (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)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF from his publications listed in scholar, and I can't find any other evidence that he's notable: the Templeton award he won seems to be different from the Templeton prize since that had a different winner in 1993, and the International Association for Jungian Studies doesn't appear to be a selective organization. Psychastes (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the standards outside of NPROF are even more stringent, so using NPROF is the most charitable. Do you think he passes WP:GNG? Are there any sources with WP:SIGCOV? As I said I would be happy to keep if you can back your arguments up with a reputable source -- its not enough for you to say that he is notable and exceptional in his field, for an AfD keep !vote we need a reputable source that says so. --hroest 18:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Petersens

[edit]
The Petersens (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)

1. Current article cannot be brought up to standard. Current article uses almost entirely links to the band's own website to support the included statements. I have spent several hours looking for non-affiliated, reputable sources, and I do not believe there is significant, meaningful sources about this band that can support this article. All third party sources that I can find rely heavily on what appears to be press materials from the band, interviews with members of the band, or do not have meaningful, in-depth coverage (such as an announcement of a concert). Article appears likely to have been mostly written by individuals connected to band.

2. Band does not meet notability threshold. The nearest criteria that I can find to apply is that they have completed international concert tour, BUT I cannot find "non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources" about the tour. The most significant source I can find is linked from the current article:

The Petersens tour the Emerald Isle, Bluegrass Today, February 12, 2019. "Soulful family band The Petersens set for Whangārei, Kerikeri shows". NZ Herald.

but coverage is fairly superficial, and this is the only source of this quality that I am able to find. Driftingdrifting (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not super experienced with band notability. They clearly have toured internationally. And there are enough sources to at least create a stub based on reliable sources. Is that enough? --Jahaza (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pulling the links. Yeah, there are a third party sources, but I don't think they meet the criteria of "non-trival coverage in independent reliable sources". The coverage is not particularly in depth, and these are fairly small publications. Driftingdrifting (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revue des questions historiques

[edit]
Revue des questions historiques (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)

Unsourced translation of the unsourced French article. What at first glance appears to be dozens of sources, turns out to be dozens of articles in the Revue about other things. A few passing mentions here and there, but no significant secondary coverage that I can find. Other than Google, I recommend searching Qwant and Persee; see those links among the set of find-source links on the Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
  • Serious claim to be first modern scholarly journal in both France and the French language
  • Publication that went for 80 years
  • Important in France as an intellectual cornerstone of the Nineteenth Century Catholic revival
  • Important outside (and in) France as an early stage in exporting German "scientific history" methods
  • A linked internet archive and 4 (post AfD) references undermine the "unreferenced" claim
JASpencer (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only ref #1 is promising; the rest are passing mentions:
  • Ref 1: One solid paragraph about the journal; borderline WP:SIGCOV. Replicate this several times in secondary sources, with sources that have deeper treatment, and you probably have it.
  • Ref 2: mentioned in passing (2x) on page 158; e.g., In sum, the Revue historique served ideological purposes no less than the legitimist and conservative Revue des questions historiques, an historical journal which began to be published ten years earlier, in 1886, and which, as Carbonell writes, has been just about totally ignored by the few French historians who have written on the history of history in France..
  • Ref 3: One passing mention:
One passing mention

Like the discipline of history, which was divided between the conservative and Catholic Revue des questions historiques (1866) and the republican Revue historique (1876), the major textbooks on the history of law distinguish between, on the one hand, the work of liberals such as Adhémar Esmein and Jean-Baptiste Brissaud and, on the other, those carried out by Catholic jurists (Ernest Glasson, Paul Viollet, and Émile Chénon).

Original: À l'instar de la discipline historique, clivée entre la conservatrice et catholique Revue des questions historiques (1866) et la républicaine Revue historique (1876), les grands manuels d'histoire du droit laissent distinguer, d'un côté, les entreprises menées par des libéraux comme Adhémar Esmein et Jean-Baptiste Brissaud et, de l'autre, ceux réalisés par des juristes catholiques (Ernest Glasson, Paul Viollet et Émile Chénon).

See the links at the Talk page for additional possibilities for sourcing. Mathglot (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are continuing to add citations; that's great. Checking 5 and 6:
  • Ref 5: Ten passing mentions, with one on p. 111, as you noted. I don't see anything involving a significant treatment of the topic here, but if you can show that there is continual treatment on the three pages from 108 to 111 and not just passing mentions, that might help.
  • Ref 6: This is a 20-page article by esteemed French historian Charles-Olivier Carbonell about the birth of the similarly named journal, Revue historique, which to a large extent, was founded in reaction to the Revue des questions historiques and mimicked its format but not its content. I would say that this certainly counts as a reliable source with significant coverage of the topic (the first one that does, by my reckoning).
Is he the only French historian who ever wrote about it, or are there other serious treatments of it? Find two more like #6, and you're good. Mathglot (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

God's Revelation to the Human Heart

[edit]
God's Revelation to the Human Heart (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)

Current sources appears to be passing mentions and bookstore descriptions. Both does not count towards WP:GNG, which does not appear to be fulfilled. A WP:BEFORE search also returned no results outside of passing mentions. Nothing in Newspapers.com about the book either.

The book exists, but there is almost no coverage of it by reliable sources outside of passing mentions. Proposing a redirect to the author. Pinging Myckaa, Moriwen for involvement with the failed PROD. Justiyaya 08:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ilija Macedonian Orthodox Church, Mississauga

[edit]
St. Ilija Macedonian Orthodox Church, Mississauga (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)

Already had a notability template on it. Can't really find any information about it online except the church's "About" page, which has been directly copy-pasted into the article. Currently have a copyvio template up, but it might be best for the article to just go. Spookyaki (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nativity of the Virgin Mary Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral, Sterling Heights, Michigan

[edit]
Nativity of the Virgin Mary Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral, Sterling Heights, Michigan (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 building doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. I added the only sources I could find to the article, and the only secondary source with significant coverage is Mactel Australian Macedonian News, which looks tenuously reliable to me. There may be significant coverage in Macedonian language sources. No obvious redirect targets. Suriname0 (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content itself is mostly generic info about the church and a piece of trivia about it. No indication as to why it is relevant in itself, probably best to include information about it in the Macedonian Orthodox Church linked in the article itself. 37.211.69.56 (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would anyone like to reconsider their !votes in light of Dclemens's findings?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Junction Colorado Temple

[edit]
Grand Junction Colorado 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)

1. Subject does not meet WP:GNG as per WP:ORG and WP:NCHURCH. A dash of WP:TOOSOON as it would appear the church is not even open yet.

2. WP:PROMOTIONAL tone.

3. Overt reliance on WP:PRIMARY sources. It would appear that only two secondary sources are here.

Regardless, while points two and three might be addressed, point one will not be.

MWFwiki (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support deletion, although these concerns could be fixed with a re-write so maybe move it to a draft. Sushidude21! (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, possibly until September It looks like this temple will open later this year. That said, you may have a case that the articles on these buildings are overly reliant on LDS Church sources. Looking at this one, we have three articles from two sources (KJCT and KKCO share a newsroom — if I had a nickel for every time Gray Television came up at an AfD I'd reviewed in the last week, I'd have two nickels, but whatever). Every remaining reference is direct from the LDS Church or an affiliate like Church News or LDS Living. There is a substantial amount of puffy wording that could be cut down. I note an earlier redirect attempt was reverted by the creator of the current text. I want to see Happyrain2121 contribute as they have been very active in temple articles. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Draftify': There is likely to be sufficient independent WP:SIGCOV generated after the temple's completion to result in a WP:GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot assume whether or not there will be SIGCOV. Draftspace doesn't exist to park a topic until SIGCOV materializes. If it were opening in a week, sure, I'd support this... but outright claiming that will "likely be sufficient independent SIGCOV" is TOOSOON with a dash of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Regardless, SIGCOV arguably already technically exists, but we don't have it in the form of independent RSs. I'm not arguing to salt the subject, but I also didn't submit this article. MWFwiki (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what draftspace is for. Every other LDS temple has an article. I'm not saying this one should have an article in the absence of SIGCOV. I'm just saying that it's almost certain to have it by the time it's completed. No point in deleting and then having to undelete it later when we can just draftify it until the right coverage emerges. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftspace exists to "improve" an article. It is not "exactly" for parking an article to wait for SIGCOV to materialize. We also cannot assume SIGCOV will exist or not. It doesn't, presently. WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is not a replacement for SIGCOV. MWFwiki (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Improvement" includes looking for and waiting for sources. If in six months there are no sources and the draft is not improved, it will be deleted. If returned to mainspace without improvements, then it can be deleted. I participate a lot at AfD and I've !voted plenty of times for deletion, but it always makes more sense (and is more welcoming to page creators and thus supportive of new editor retention) to give articles on topics likely to be notable in the near future a chance to hang out in draftspace. Regardless, I looked at the history of this page, and it was a redirect before the article was created. Restoring a redirect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Colorado#Temples will have the same effect as draftification (the expanded article created by @Happyrain2121 remains in the article history, ready to be revived once sufficient sourcing is available) while allowing us to avoid a rather talmudic debate about the purposes of draftspace. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate everyone for taking the time to give feedback on this article.
With all that was mentioned, it seems like the main concern is whether the article meets the general notability guidelines. To align with that, I’ve added several independent sources that demonstrate the consistent coverage of the Grand Junction Temple—not just quick mentions or announcements, and removed the source that is marked as generally not reliable in Wikipedia. I’ve also made some updates to the article itself based on the comments given earlier, including neutralizing the tone, adjusting the language that might have come across as promotional, and improving the source formatting.
Before we wrap up the discussion, I am hoping that you could take another look at the current version of the article. I put in a good amount of effort to find additional independent sources to directly address the concerns mentioned. For example, I added two sources from Western Slope Now, a local news outlet—one from late 2022 and another from April 2025. The fact that they are published in different years and not church-affiliated, shows that this isn’t just a one-time mention.
Regarding church-published sources like Church News, I’ve used them to support basic and factual information. I find that it’s generally consistent with the guidance given in WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Sources, and it aligns with how similar articles use them. If there’s anything that still stands out to be insufficient, I’m more than happy to rework it. Happyrain2121 (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the newly added references?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]

Categories for discussion

[edit]

Miscellaneous

[edit]

Hinduism

[edit]

Saura (Hinduism)

[edit]
Saura (Hinduism) (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)

Cannot find any significant coverage in RSes. I've looked on Google Scholar, Google News and JSTOR. KnowDeath (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Saura sect is notable in its own. Its a dead sect of Brahmanism. See this pg. 767:

    Saura Hinduism is the branch of Hinduism in which the sun is worshipped as the principal deity.
    —Thomas J. Hopkins, Encyclopaedia of Oriental Philosophy and Religion.

    Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't even close to being enough material to make an article. The sources the author cites aren't specifically about Saura Hinduism either. KnowDeath (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shede Dev

[edit]
Shede Dev (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 references and minor temple failing WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aulikara−Hunnic War

[edit]
Aulikara−Hunnic War (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 matter doesn't meet notability according to WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. It has not received enough coverage in reliable secondary sources; primarily, the content is original and speculative. There is also significant overlap with existing articles on Aulikaras and the Alchon Huns, making the entry a copy. The Red Archive (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

Templates

[edit]

Miscellaneous

[edit]

Hinduism Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]


Islam

[edit]

Adil Salahi

[edit]
Adil Salahi (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)

In my opinion this article don't meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia and there is no reliable source quoted either in the article. R1F4T (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim Nobel laureates

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Muslim Nobel laureates (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)

WP:OR, most of the people on this list aren’t actually Muslim. Non notable list as noted on its talkpage. It contained unreliable references including Answers.com. Thepharoah17 (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC) I’ll note last time it was nominated for deletion in a bundle 18 years ago and that was closed as delete. And then it was nominated again in a bundle with other articles three years ago and that was closed as no consensus. Thepharoah17 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arabization in Malaysia

[edit]
Arabization in Malaysia (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)

While this is probably a topic that could use an article, this appears to be an llm-generated text (the original author and only significant contributor is blocked for sockpuppetry). While the sources where included do seem to exist, they have little to no relationship with the text they are citing. Some are entirely unrelated to the topic at hand. CMD (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hadhrat Ahmad

[edit]
Hadhrat Ahmad (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:Nbook and Wp:GNG.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 17:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge and Truth

[edit]
Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge and Truth (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:Nbook and Wp:GNG.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 06:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

72 virgins

[edit]
72 virgins (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 is just an islamophobic WP:POVFORK of Houri and Palestinian suicide attacks with no content whatsoever other than a quote from the book Sunan al-Tirmidhi and an immediate "In popular culture" and an excerpt of the "72 virgins" section of the Palestinian suicide attacks article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the article used to be a disamb page that clearly listed it as a misconception before Closetside decided to change it completely 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://dorar.net/hadith/search?q=%D8%A7%D8%AB%D9%86%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%90+%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%B9%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8E+%D8%B2%D9%88%D8%AC%D8%A9%D9%8B+%D9%85%D9%86+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%90+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%90&searchType=word&st=w&xclude=&rawi%5B%5D=
  • Comment: The perceived legitimacy of the tenet is utterly irrelevant. If sources report on it, including arguing against it, it exists in some form. @Abo Yemen, the link you provided therefore wholly supports that this is an existing concept. Geschichte (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to disamb page: This is clearly a WP:POVFORK and if it weren't for the fact that something useful existed prior to closetside's POV pushing, I'd recommend deleting. As something useful previously existed I'd suggested restoring to that. TarnishedPathtalk 16:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic of 72 virgins as a concept meets WP:GNG and has been the subject of much academic and journalistic WP:SIGCOV over an extended period of time. Any WP:NPOV concerns should be dealt with on the article, but it is notable as a standalone topic. It should absolutely be covered with the appropriate context as a canard. See:
Guardian article on the topic
academic book chapter
explainer in Slate
Extensive use by would-be terrorists covered in reporting and academic literature: [25], [26], [27]. Longhornsg (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't like stereotypes either, but we have lots of articles about them. The tone of the nomination is "I don't like it." That's not a reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so you ignored the fact that this is a WP:POVFORK just because you didn't like how my nom sounded? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, just because there is sufficient coverage it does not mean there should be a standalone page. The material is already covered at Islamophobic trope#72 virgins where it has adequate prose dedicated to it. This page should go back to a disamb. TarnishedPathtalk 11:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The fact that it is a legitimate teaching or not is irrelevant to if it should be deleted or not. We shouldn't be arguing about its Islamic legitimacy in a deletion discussion, it's like wanting to delete Flat Earth because it's not true. If it's not legitimate, this article should be about raising awareness that it is in fact a false teaching being used as a recruitment strategy. Sayuuuto (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, but I'd suggest a WP:TNT due to how it's written. Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 15:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 20:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, btw, the article seems to have something to do with Palestinian suicide attacks, and thus be covered by WP:PIA, doesn't this make non XC users unable to vote here? — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 20:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Cheesedealer: it definitely shouldn't be allowed 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 21:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom Plantbaseddiet (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Muslim History Month

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
International Muslim History Month (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 was AfD'ed in 2022 after the organization's first year. It was recreated recently with a lot more references but I don't think the organization or observance has sources for notability. There are 3 types of deficient sources on this article, first is non-independent sources like this one. The second is the plethora of sources talking about Canada like this one because it is a separate event that is held in October. The final group of poor sources are the ones that aren't about IMHM at all and they aren't used to support background information either, like this one.

Other evidence against this having notability includes this celebration in April and this one in March.

I would support a selected merge to International Hijab Day since it is the same founder. Moritoriko (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Shah Israil

[edit]
Syed Shah Israil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to meet the notability guidelines as outlined in WP:N. The subject is not the focus of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The few mentions that do exist are passing and do not provide the depth of material necessary to support a standalone article. Most of the sources cited are either not about the subject or use it only as a brief example without substantial analysis or dedicated discussion. Given the lack of notability and meaningful coverage, the article does not justify its own space. Deletion or merging into a broader, more relevant topic (if applicable) would be more appropriate. Retaining it in its current state risks violating Wikipedia’s standards. Jaunpurzada (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion


Others


Judaism topics

[edit]
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 keep‎. The rename can be done editorially Star Mississippi 14:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda HaKohen

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Yehuda HaKohen (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 was soft-deleted back in 2020, so that is no longer an option. Did not go through the DRV process. He gets some slight coverage, but not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2025 (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.

Roots of Reform Judaism

[edit]
Roots of Reform Judaism (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 for notability for more than 10 years and fails WP:NORG. Non-notable constituency within the Union for Reform Judaism, which is a suitable redirect target as an WP:ATD. Per a before, unable to find independent, significant coverage of the group that would establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 04:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaoul Sassoon

[edit]
Shaoul Sassoon (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)

Article appears to be a BLP failing WP:GNG, lacking significant coverage. The sources listed are primary (1-7) or passing (8). A pretty substantial search turned up nothing covering this individual. Garsh (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources which i provided are this man's own interviews. and its very important article with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a problem though, interviews are primary sources and do not show notability. -- NotCharizard 🗨 11:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What else can I do then. This article is very important article with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq under Saddam Hussein Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I quickly found this article in Israel's newspaper of record. It's about Sassoon and about the organization that interviewed him. Haven't made up my mind yet. gidonb (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This article seems to be more about the organization that interviewed Sassoon and Saddam's regime, not necessarily Sassoon himself. I'm not sure that a two paragraph mention in an article about a related topic counts as significant coverage. Garsh (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a beginning. If others want to continue the search, they can! gidonb (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That Shaoul Sassoon mentioned is Zionist, who is son of Iraq's Grand Rabbi Sassoon Khadouri. not Engineer Shaul Sasoon Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That Shaul Sassoon is different from this one on whom the article is about Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I looked some more and did not find enough for the GNG. The domain is not well-covered, so with regret. gidonb (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment There are news some sources such as Baghdad Observer and al-Watan.com, these are website sources and remaining are interviews in four parts (four refs can be interview themselves and two parts of interview is mentioned in a website separately Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if you want this article to be kept, please indicate Keep in bold font so it doesn't get overlooked. Also a source review would be very helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand. Can you pls explain me what you meant to say Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i believe the article should be kept, even thou its not currently at its best, it is good in expanding on reconigtion of iraqi jews during the 70s-2003, when jews are overshadowed in iraqi history. Local Mandaean (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's failing WP:GNG and lacking significant coverage. Cinder painter (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 08:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is important with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It gives an important information that just like Christians and Mandaeans, Jews were also a part of Saddam Hussein's government. Unlike the propaganda narrative spread by Israel on anti-Zionist leaders, whom they equate with total antisemitism. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, this shouldn't get resolved by whom someone likes (whether the subject or Saddam), or by whom we dislike. We regularly delete bios of wonderful people and keep these of villains, value free. gidonb (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last chance for the keep !voters to provide sources in support of their arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Sikhism

[edit]

Miscellaneous

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Religion&oldid=1295130229"