Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion

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

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 delete. --Core desat 06:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystical Order of the Temple of the Rosy Cross

This is a NN group that doesn't even exist yet according to its article. All the pertinent historical info on this group when it did exist is already in the article on its defunct predecessor (Order of the Temple of the Rosy Cross). MSJapan 15:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, or a place to recruit members for a new society. Out! Brianyoumans 18:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, although there are quite a few google results, it does seem like it is trying to recruit members. If when it reforms it does become moe notable, then it may possible be alright to add back on, but at the moment I think not. Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:45, 22 June 2007 (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.

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 delete. --Core desat 04:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Center for Spiritual Living

Questionable notability, written in an advertising tone (e.g. "CHANGE YOUR THINKING, CHANGE YOUR LIFE"), only sources are their website and other Wikipedia articles Rackabello 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator Rackabello 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to cast an extra delete vote, your nomination constitutes as such. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Per the nom, it feels really spammy and is written with a COI flavor. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. remove the Change your thinking change your life, because that is a bit spammy. However, the article is based on examples of others within wikipedia, which is why it also references other articles in wikipedia. Additional necessary references for the material contained in the article are being added. Cookcorec 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC) C. Cook-Core 6/21/07 — Cookcorec (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment This group was originally the "Downtown Community Church" It's said to be part of "United Centers for Spiritual Living" aka "United Church of Religious Science" whose main article is Religious ScienceDGG 23:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it begs the question: is this individual church notable? Apparently, from what I am reading, the answer is "no". --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Man, we really need notability guidelines for churches. This could well be notable as churches go, but the only news hits for it are community calendar events, so under general NN requirements it fails. Capmango 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This church is notable in that it is the first Religious Science church to incorporate ministers from all three major Religious Science organizations, UCRS, RSI, and ANTN as practicing ministers at the same time. The three organizations have been in discussion on how to merge the teaching and educational requirements for several years, and this church is the precurser to that end result. It is also one of the very few churches/centers in a highly urban setting. It is part of the City of San Diego revitalization program to bring families back to the city. Dr. Gordon Bishop, who founded the church, was the President of both NewSchool of Architecture and Holmes Institute for Consciousness Studies at the time. Holmes Institute is the seminary for Religious Science Ministers through UCRS/UCSL. It became an accredited institution through his direct efforts based on his vast experience with state and private schools. This church is also notable in that it brings world-renown metaphysical leaders and teachers to the City of San Diego. This church is active in community outreach to the downtown area, where million-dollar condos and wealthy residents live side-by-side with rampant homelessness and poverty. It is an educational center where no one is turned away for their personal belief system. Should that information have been included in the article? C. Cook-Core 26 June 2007.
Delete I see no reason why this article (that reads like a brochure) should be included. No external sources are presented to show that this church is notable per WP:ORG. Maybe a paragraph about this church could go in an article on Gordon Bishop (who may meet WP:BIO)... — Scientizzle 19:39, 28 June 2007 (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.

Christianity

List of youngest bishops

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

This appears to be almost exclusively a work of original research. The sole exception is the one Guinness World Record reference, which solely establishes that one individual is considered the Guinness World Record-holder for "youngest bishop" and (as mentioned in previous discussion at RSN) doesn't build towards broader notability. A great many of the ages are pulled from Catholic Hierarchy, a website of challenged reliability and unable to contribute towards notability. The RSs that are present source the age of individual bishops and do not indicate the notability of this list. Lastly, the scope of this list appears to be defined by personal preference rather than by any reliable sources. The prescription that "Only notable subjects with Wikipedia articles" raises concerns on its own, but it appears designed to exclude certain Christian traditions that may consecrate atypically young bishops. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, and Christianity. Pbritti (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secret combination (Latter Day Saints)

AfDs for this article:

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

Filing on behalf of an IP:

Per WP:DUE and WP:NOT. No independent reliable sources cover this subject, and this article acts like a wordy dictionary entry. 12.75.41.70 (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WT:AFD#AFD Request: Secret combination (Latter Day Saints) has some preliminary discussion about sources and notability for this topic (permalink). Left guide (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael and All Angels Episcopal Church (Studio City)

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

Nomination: Does not satisfy WP:NBUILDING/WP:GNG.

"In the early 2020s, the church was deemed eligible for placement on the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register." Yet, it does not appear on the register. I believe there may be some presumption of notability if the building is indeed located on the NRHP, but alas, we only have a vague assertion of NRHP "eligibility," here.

I do not believe we have "in-depth" and reliable sourcing. The sources provided are probably acceptable, but don't go far in terms of notability.

I believe we could have some copyright issues, though this isn't pertinent to the AfD. Just wanted to see if anyone else agreed.

As such, I feel compelled to, unfortunately, nominate for deletion.

MWFwiki (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The application date for historic status is today. The building is barely 60 years old. It fails my standards for notability of historic churches. For what it's worth, I'm Episcopalian. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What does this "eligibility" even indicate?Potential to be added to the NRHP? Does it confer any notability, in your opinion? MWFwiki (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul C. H. Lim

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

Can't find evidence of WP:NACADEMIC. Can't find WP:SIGCOV of him in English or Korean. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Religion, Korea, and South Korea. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From GScholar, Mystery Unveiled: The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England has a decent citation count at 138; need to check for reviews, possible WP:NAUTHOR pass. The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism has 234 citations, but I don't know how much to read into that as he appears to have been a contributing editor rather than a primary editor. Curbon7 (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As expected Mystery Unveiled has a high number of academic reviews (sample: [1][2][3]). There are also a few reviews for his other sole authorship book In Pursuit of Purity, Unity, and Liberty: Richard Baxter’s Puritan Ecclesiology in Its Seventeenth-century Context (sample: [4][5][6]). Curbon7 (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clear WP:NAUTHOR pass under #3, as having created a significant works, that has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The sources provided by Curbon7 shows that the individual passes this. It is also arguable that Lim could meet WP:NACADEMIC #6 as having been elected the president of the American Society of Church History for 2019 [7]. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It'd be great if those reviews could be added to the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done Curbon7 (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as multiple reliable sources reviews of his works as detailed in this discussion by Curbon7 show a pass of WP:NAUTHOR imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: CountHacker has explained it quite well, and I fully agree with him/her. Additionally, the Authority Control data (WP:VIAF) also provides some strong indications. Baqi:) (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erika D. Crawford

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

Lacks notability, there are no sources in the article about her which aren't from her church or from her university. Looking for better sources only gives passing mentions like this or this. A redirect to African Methodist Episcopal Church#Bishops might be an WP:ATD. Fram (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Religion, Christianity, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Mississippi, New York, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No proven notability in reliable sources. At very least the article should be draftified as it's obviously not ready for primetime, with placeholder text and external links in the article body. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Religion News Service is a reliable source for her election as bishop in a church with episcopal polity.[8] --Jahaza (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  But it spends one sentence on her, it is not significant coverage. Fram (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either Redirect or Draftify at Mahal AU's option. --Jahaza (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is a bishop, one of 21 in "one of the largest Methodist denominations in the world.", so meets the description at WP:BISHOPS. PamD 08:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But note that (a) article needs cleanup and (b) we await a statement from the creating editor as to whether they were paid for this work (see User talk:Mahal AU#Paid creation). Still, she is notable and an article on her is needed in en.wiki. PamD 08:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BISHOPS is not a generally accepted SNG but just project advice. She needs to meet the WP:GNG instead. Fram (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BISHOPS is actually very applicable, as AME Bishops do actually appear to be over an area, per African Methodist Episcopal Church, rather than just a single congregation. And BISHOPS is generally normative in AfDs, so whether it maintains a title as an SNG or not, it's clearly a rationale that many editors find compelling. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How many bishops without significant independent coverage from such mid-sized denominations (it seems to be the 12th largest Christian one in the US IIRC) have been tested at AfD? Fram (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cashibo (mission)

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much else found to consider against the notability standards for inclusion JMWt (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Switzerland, and Peru. JMWt (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only inbound link is from the DAB page. The Spanish article seems to be a direct translation of this one. The original author is Olinadnegrab (talk · contribs), who has no other contributions other than the aerial photo of the site, which has been transferred to Commons and appears in the Spanish article. Also, since it's not in the history of the page in the edit summary anymore, here's the 18-year-old edit I made when splitting this article.—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 07:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've got 5 hits on Swissdox for "Cashibo" and 53 for "Indicamino"; most results for both seem to be about this topic. It might be a few days before I can analyze the sources or expand the article, but I believe the topic is notable. Toadspike [Talk] 12:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looked through the Cashibo results. Sigcov: [9], plus "Landwirtschaftshilfe in Peru leisten" in the St. Galler Tagblatt of 19.11.2004. Not sigcov: [10] and another offline-only article. Leaning weak keep; if this is kept I'd it move to Indicamino. Toadspike [Talk] 13:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Louton family

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

I've been unable to find any SIGCOV other than Rollin Grams's book Stewards of Grace, which is not an independent source, as he is a member of the family. Jahaza (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Lists of people, Christianity, South Africa, and United States of America. Jahaza (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing any independent WP:SIGCOV to support an article on this topic. Even if Stewards of Grace were independent, I would want to see evidence of other sources discussing the "Louton family" as a topic on its own, similar to other "known" families like the Kennedy family (for example). I was hoping that Stewards of Grace would cite works we could use to establish notability, but from a quick skim of the footnotes I don't see anything promising. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only RS identified by Cite Highlighter are 12 and 13... 12 is listed as a blog, so not helpful. 13 is an article about after-hours stock trading, not about a religious missionary family... This is a walled garden, we've already deleted a few members and few if any of the individuals are notable. As I said elsewhere, a bunch of non-notable individuals lumped together doesn't make them notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Eugene Grams appears to be the only member who has a credible assertion of notability. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St John's Wood Road Baptist Church

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

The article is short, sourced only from the subject's website, and has at times been edited to read as a website for the church. I don't believe the article establishes notoriety (e.g., 50 members, lacking secondary sources). Mad Jim Bey talk 22:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, Christianity, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete not seeing the notability. Mangoe (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and my longstanding standards. While the congregation is almost 100 years old, the building and its programs are much more recent and ordinary. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A. G. Louton

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

Appears to be a non-notable religious person, coverage is limited to a description of events attended or handled by the individual. Nothing found outside of the obituary. Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Arkansas. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only do I doubt this person would satisfy GNG, but I also have concerns that the use of obituaries as sources may run afoul of WP:OBITUARIES, namely: they are often not intended to be neutral, but to eulogize (or, in more rare cases, actively condemn) the subject [...] [O]bituaries may emphasize aspects of a subject's life that are not particularly significant otherwise, such as philanthropy or charitable donations Gommeh 🎮 17:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This person is not independently notable, but the family has been the subject of some books and articles. Merge into the louton family page of which he is the patriarch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredthefighter (talk • contribs) — Fredthefighter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep starting 50 churches in South Africa as confirmed by reliable sources is notable in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the citation for that? Jahaza (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper references 5 and 6 in the article. Assuming good faith as I don't have access to newspapers.com, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar M. Louton

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

Subject appears non-notable. Zero sources found to show notability, Gbooks has nothing. Gsearch only brings up this Wiki page or mirrors, then peters off. No lasting notability found. Oaktree b (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not sure why you say zero sources to show notability as there are sources in the article. I also used WP:TWL to check newspaper archive and there any several mentions of this guy from the 1960s. However, it appears to me to be routine coverage as it is just announcements of his talk in the various towns he saw in his speaking tour. The talk appears to be basically that he went to africa and is going to tell people about it. I don't really think that makes him notable. I say routine coverage as they were not presented as reported stories with by-line but more like guest speaker announcements by the churches he was visiting. I don't really see stuff from the 80s to show that his beliefs were notable outside of the church he practiced in. Czarking0 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article don't show notability, they describe a pastor doing church things, that's rather routine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately this looks like a bit of a walled garden. That will need some more cleanup. I'm going to see what I can prod. Jahaza (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I propose this is merged into the Louton family article. The family biographer, Rollin G. Grams (also a family member), conducted an in-depth study of the family's influence as one of his academic projects, and the book very clearly documents the family's influence as a missionary power bloc in South Africa. However, agree with nom that the subject is not notable independent of his family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredthefighter (talk • contribs) 16:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not even sure the family is notable. A bunch of non-notable people lumped together doesn't make notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to A. G. Louton if that article is kept, as they have a combined notability working together in South Africa, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See the references already present in the article. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Small One (book)

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

Lack of notability outside of being adapted into the titular Disney short film. Could not verify with more sources. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Disney, Christianity, and United States of America. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to The Small One. A bit of a strange one — there are a ton of sources on Newspapers.com that predate the Disney short film, but they are almost all about the radio adaptations or albums that were based on the story, and none provide any real reception or analysis (e.g. [11] [12] [13] [14]). It does seem to have been a popular story even before the Disney adaptation, but there's almost nothing I can find about the original book itself, and I'm not really seeing anything that couldn't easily be covered within a "Background" or "Original story" section in The Small One. MCE89 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This seems like it was apparently quite a popular book back then, but coverage is weirdly hard to find. Kirkus Reviews apparently had a review of this book per their index. I don't have access to it unfortunately, but I asked over at RX, and hopefully someone'll be able to get it. Found quite a bit of those very short reviews, [15], but I wouldn't count them towards NBOOK. This also had an entry in The Christmas Encyclopedia. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another short one in Booklist: [16] and Library Journal [17] ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkus review is here. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion but not opposed to a merge and redirect to The Small One, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Crump, William D. (2001). The Christmas Encyclopedia. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 262–263. ISBN 0-7864-1034-5. Retrieved 2025-07-28 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Classic children's book written by American author Charles Tazewell (1900-1972), published in 1947. The setting is Old Mexico a few days before Christmas. ... Bing Crosby provided a narrative recording of the story for Decca Records in 1947. The Walt Disney Company adapted the story as an animated cartoon short, The Small One (1978), which centered only around the Judean boy and Small One. ... Disney subsequently published a book version of the cartoon under the same title in 1995, written by Alex Walsh with a foreword by television celebrity Kathie Lee Gifford."
2. Abernethy, Cecil E. (1947-11-29). "The World of Books". The Birmingham News. Archived from the original on 2025-07-28. Retrieved 2025-07-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "This tale is told by a Mexican padre to a little boy. Pablo, who is having trouble with his stubborn donkey. The padre says it is pride, not stubbornness, and he tells the boy about Small One, a lame and worn-out donkey who is sent by a wood-cutter to be sold to the tanner. The wood-cutter's son thinks this an unworthy destiny for so good a friend. He tries to sell him at the horse-auction and about town, but he has no success until evening, when as he is about to submit Small One to the tanner, a man named Joseph buys the donkey to carry his wife Mary to Bethlehem, and Small One earns his destiny and his pride. The story is beautifully managed; the illustrations by Franklin Whitman are good. This will be a nice gift for a nephew or niece between the ages of 6 and 9."
3. H. H. L. (1947-12-10). "The Small One, By Charles Tazewell, Sketches and color painting by Franklin Whitman". Columbia Missourian. Archived from the original on 2025-07-28. Retrieved 2025-07-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Mr. Tazewell's book takes an indirect approach to the Christmas story A donkey is his central char-acter, and around this scourged, slow-footed beast is woven as tender a short tale as has warmed the heart since "A Christmas Carol." Like the Dickens classic, its appeal embraces all ages. Following on the heels of "The Littlest Angel," the cherub darling who fluttered into national heroism, this intimate defense of donkey stubbornness took on the mellow glow of legend after Bing Crosby gave a radio dramatization of it. Now vividly illustrated by Franklin Whitman, it has been copyrighted in Great Britain, the British Dominions, and in the Republic of the Philippines."
4. N. T. R. (1947-12-14). "The Small One". The News & Observer. Archived from the original on 2025-07-28. Retrieved 2025-07-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: ""The Small One" is the name of a donkey whose fond young master tries hard to save from the tanner. He finally finds a purchaser who will use the donkey to transport his wife to Bethlehem. The man's name is Joseph, the woman's name is Mary, and the events of the night make "The Small One" the most celebrated donkey in the kingdom. The little book is colorfully illustrated and should make an appealing gift for 10-year-olds."
5. "Book Reviews". Oklahoma City Star. 1947-12-14. Archived from the original on 2025-07-28. Retrieved 2025-07-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "This story for those who like Christmas and small donkeys concerns the reasons for the frequently observed aloofness of the donkey tribe-an aloofness which is by no means stubbornness or laziness, but proper pride which is also a shield against all adversities. There is beauty, tenderness, and love in the account of the donkey a small boy loved, but had to sell, of the kind man who bought him, and of the important burden he carried to Bethlehem, where his tired old eyes were among the first to see the King born to reign over men, and centuries, life and death. His tired feet had carried him straight into a miracle and all the small donkeys since then have taken time to stand and dream of the Small One."
6. Falanga, Jean Brehmer (1947-12-23). "Books for Vermonters". Rutland Daily Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-07-28. Retrieved 2025-07-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "For reading aloud to the younger generation on Christmas Eve, there is a nice little book called The Small One, big Charles Tazewell, Illustrated in colors by Franklin Whitman (Wineton, $1), The Small One was a donkey whose master decided to sell him to the tannery because he was no longer able to do heavy work, but the tale of how the master's son found a new owner for the faithful little animal is a-new interpretation of the Christmas story that will appeal to children."
7. "Children's Books". The Buffalo News. 1947-12-20. Archived from the original on 2025-07-28. Retrieved 2025-07-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Countless parents who have heard this beautiful story on a Decca recording by Bing Crosby will be delighted to find this small volume. It is the story of a small boy who found out why donkeys are not really stubborn, as people say, but proud, because one donkey long ago was chosen to go with Mary and Joseph into Bethlehem. Illuminated initial letters, readable type and delightful illustrations."
8. The sources found by MCE89 and ARandomName123.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Small One to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good finds. I think this is really more of a WP:PAGEDECIDE question. We have a fair number of short reviews, which I agree is enough for a weak pass of WP:NBOOK, but is there really enough to say about the book on its own to warrant a separate page? I’m still leaning towards thinking this is better covered in a section of The Small One describing the original story. MCE89 (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The very detailed encyclopedia entry about the book in Crump 2001 is a particularly strong source. I think there is enough coverage in the many reviews to support a detailed "Reception" section and a standalone article such that a merge to the featurette article The Small One would be undue weight. Cunard (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cunard found some quality sources. I would often support a merge too but that doesn't seem necessary here. Archrogue (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge? Cunard has presented several sources, but a WP:PAGEDECIDE concern has also been raised.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Interfaith Broadcasters

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

Hasn't been updated in a long time aside from templates; mainly promotional. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Georgia (U.S. state). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google shows a lack of reliable independent sources. As for presumed notability, the fact that it is only locally broadcasted high channel makes me say no.

Czarking0 (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep significant coverage here, also some of their programming is being preserved in a museum collection as shown here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. A source review would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shirt of Flame

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

Firstly, the page can't seem to decide of the phrase "Shirt of Flame" refers to a poison dress as it appears in mythology and folklore, or clothing worn by people burned at the stake. Secondly, regardless of which direction the article were to lean in, it fails notability. If one is to view Shift of Flame as referring to a poison dress, said content can be simply placed in the poison dress article. If the article is instead to focus solely on the Christian usage of it being the clothing worn by burned martyrs, then it simply fails notability. Most of the sections are unsourced, with no indication that "Shirt of Flame" is a major concept in discussions concerning Christianity. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the "clothing that sets its wearer on fire" being ported into its own section under poison dress, as it's essentially another variation of the same literary trope and I believe the prevailing interpretation of the term "Shirt of Flame". I don't think the concept of "what someone was wearing when burnt at the stake" has much connection to the term "Shirt of Flame", I couldn't find many references from several Google searches, it was always the Arthurian-style Shirt of Flame popping up. --Aabicus (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The term "Shirt of Flame" is ambiguous and could refer to various unrelated concepts e.g. metaphorical usage, fantasy items, songs, or poetry. Without a clear, primary topic or sufficient navigational utility, it might be confusing or unhelpful.--Policking (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)— Policking (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Unclethepoter (talk · contribs). [reply]
~~Merge and disambiguate~~: I don't really have a good overview, but judging from the comments above I assume the different uses are somewhat disparate. So I think it would be best to cover the respective uses of the term in their respective contexts, Poison dress, Tunica molesta and Death by burning, and the make this a disambiguation page refering to those very loosely connected subjects. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there more support for a Merge and, if so, please identify ONE target article. On the other hand, if there is support for disambiguation, make that clear. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't want to put one merge-and-redirect target forward, because the content refers to these different loosely related topics without one clearly preferred one in my view. So I guess I should modify my !vote:

Keep for now, as it contains worthwhile content, with the goal of making this a disambiguation page and splitting and merging said worthwhile content to the three articles Poison dress, Tunica molesta and Death by burning, respectively. All of which are editorial steps and can be done after and independent of the deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a manual/bold merge and disambiguate to the articles linked in the lede ("The phrase Shirt of Flame refers either to a specific form of the poison dress trope in folklore, or to a particular type of clothing given to people about to face burning at the stake.") If Tunica molesta is relevant then I have no problem with with also merging there as appropriate.--Northernhenge (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

CFSO-TV (via WP:PROD on 14 May 2025)

Categories for discussion

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

Miscellaneous

Hinduism

Consecration of the Ram Mandir

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

The article is promotional about the event that failed to gain WP:LASTING coverage. The article on Ram Mandir is enough for any initial coverage. Orientls (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Hinduism, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ram Mandir#Consecration already has enough details. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 11:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The consecration did not have WP:LASTING coverage and is WP:UNDUE to have an article on itself. I agree with ZDRX that the Consecration section in the Ram Mandir article already has all the important and notable details of the event. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 11:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ram Mandir#Consecration. The rationale for a standalone article is weak: the consecration needs to be mentioned in the parent article, but I don't see so much material that it cannot all be covered there. I don't see a case for outright deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kohli (clan)

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

Stands on single source which is unreliable source, not enough coverage. Dolphish (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Asia, India, and Punjab. Dolphish (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhuiyar Dharmshala

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

Unsourced, no media coverage found in g-search, not notable. Dolphish (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Museums and libraries, Ethnic groups, Hinduism, Asia, India, and Uttarakhand. Dolphish (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Before commenting, I conducted a search but couldn’t find anything (WP:BEFORE). I also checked Google Books, but there was no mention of the subject, not even a name reference in any of the books. Baqi:) (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dhagi

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

All of the sources are unreliable, not enough coverage. Dolphish (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Islam, Hinduism, Asia, India, Bihar, Punjab, and Uttarakhand. Dolphish (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhambi

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

Hoax article, not notable, unsourced from long time. Dolphish (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, History, Hinduism, Asia, India, Maharashtra, and Punjab. Dolphish (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:. Clearly not a hoax article. A simple Google search shows multiple mentions of the caste. For example, the caste is mentioned in the constitution of India (THE CONSTITUTION (SCHEDULED CASTES) ORDER, 19501 (C.O.19)) — ERcheck (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Satyaprakash Saraswati

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

As far as I can tell, this is the same person whose article was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami Satya Prakash Saraswati. I can't find evidence that he is notable, but perhaps others have more success. Fram (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, and India. Fram (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Hinduism, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's written like a paean, which would be fixable, but there don't seem to be any references that one could use to write a better page, or to justify why a page is deserved in the first place. A whole lot of pseudoscientific tosh has circulated over the years about "Vedic wisdom", and we'd need top-notch sources to avoid propagating that kind of fringe chatter. Department chair is an administrative position, not an academic honor, and by itself it does not satisfy the academic notability guideline. Also, this article was created on 29 July 2025, and yet the references claim to have been retrieved on 18 April 2014. I don't know what the deal is with that. (Text copy-and-pasted from somewhere else? Unreviewed slopbot output?) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the name itself is against WP:TITLESINTITLES. Poor references, no evidence of notability. Reads like an ad. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:27, 2 August 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prasat Ta Muan

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

PROD removed without explanation. The AI generator decided that this temple is Buddhist rather than Hindu (?) and that it was built a century later than previously claimed, making it even more obvious that this user's edits are complete AI-generated hoohah. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, was just about to nominate this myself. The page is obviously complete AI garbage, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Abhichartt and User talk:Abhichartt. Can't wait for the new CSD criterion for pages like this. MCE89 (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Absent a CSD, this is the only option to get rid of the AI-generated slop. I really hope the RFC for the new CSD is SNOW-closed soon... SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: AI hoax/hallucination? Sourcing is useless and I don't see anything about this place. Oaktree b (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick search and basically all of the results I checked are for the main temple, Prasat Ta Muen Thom; apparently, this is one of three temples on that site, so an additional reason for deleting this article is that it is non-notable. It's not a WP:HOAX, but it isn't notable enough for a separate article either. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Broken formatting, including nonexistent template parameters and non-wiki-markup bold formatting. In America, we don't know the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The knowledge cutoff that causes the usage of the now-deleted Template:Lang-th may also explain the redlinked categories, most of which are former names of real categories (e.g. Category:Khmer temples in Thailand). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not only is this article AI-generated but I am unable to find any reliable sources that cover this topic. (It doesn’t seem to be about the Prasat Ta Muen Thom which IS notable). ApexParagon (talk) 03:01, 4 August 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.

Leela Charitra

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

Fails WP:N. No significant coverage in secondary sources for the content covered here for a standalone article. Also, this term can have different meanings, and better if covered on related articles. This page says "Leela Charitra is a biography of Chakradhar Swami", but no mention on Chakradhar Swami. If needed, a section can be added on Chakradhar Swami. Asteramellus (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is mentioned on Chakradhar Swami page by its alternate spelling Lilacharitra - "According to his biography Lilacharitra,". "Lilacharitra is a remarkable text from several points of view. It is the first prose text avaialble in Marathi and also the first biographical work." [18] The text is important from a literary as well as religious perspective. [19][20]--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Redtigerxyz oh thanks. Looked a bit more into this - I see mostly usage of Lilacharitra for this - Do you think then the page title Lilacharitra would be better? Asteramellus (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes IMO. Yesterday I thought I start a Wikipedia:RM, however would wait for the AfD to end. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Miscellaneous

Hinduism Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Islam

Bangladesh Liberation War and Islam

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

Argumentative essay.I'm sceptical that this is its own distinct topic from Bangladesh Liberation War, but regardless this is a candidate for WP:TNT. There is no encyclopedic version to revert to. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Religion, Islam, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems unencyclopedic at best. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 09:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article appears to cite social media activists like Pinaki Bhattacharya, whose book's credibility is questionable. His neutrality is questionable considering his activities on social media. I highly doubt it'd maintain neutrality with little-known scholars. Sajid Ahmed Nijhu (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kohli (clan)

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

Stands on single source which is unreliable source, not enough coverage. Dolphish (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Asia, India, and Punjab. Dolphish (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dhagi

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

All of the sources are unreliable, not enough coverage. Dolphish (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Islam, Hinduism, Asia, India, Bihar, Punjab, and Uttarakhand. Dolphish (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kazasker Mosque, Kadıköy

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

Current article sourced only to UGC. I have not been able to find any other sources in Turkish about this building (though I have turned up sources on mosques with the same name in other cities). Does not appear to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, and Turkey. Mccapra (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Has only two sources. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 23:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

actually it’s a single source used twice. Mccapra (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article, but yeah, it's not really that notable a building. I walk by it occasionally and got curious about it. There probably are more sources, but I won't be able to do research for the next few weeks (dağbaşındayım). If you could wait till early September... Yilanhoca (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Crescent Society

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

This should never have been accepted. The history is full of editors who declined this because of its language (AI-created); I can't judge that, but I do know that we have a bunch of poorly verified factoids about a non-notable organizations, with a bunch of sources that don't even mention the subject but are synthesized into the article. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Islam, Astronomy, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (disclosure: I approved the AfC): After reviewing most of the sources, I found that the organization does have significant secondary coverage, and I did not find any hallucinated references. As much as I dislike LLM-generated articles, this one at least appears to have undergone enough human cleanup to be a reliable article based on real sources (I did not look at earlier versions). ~~I did not encounter any sources that don't mention the subject, but I could have missed some as I did not verify every last reference.~~ It could use some work, and the article is longer than many of the cited sources, but it clears WP:GNG. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WeirdNAnnoyed, which decent, reliable, secondary sources mention the subject in any significant way?? The Al Jazeera article doesn't even mention the group! Drmies (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The articles in Religion Media Centre (Ref. 10) and The New Arab (Ref. 17) are both substantially about the organization and appear to be reliable. I partly retract my last statement, as many of the references in fact do not mention the organization but are about moon-sighting in general. I do think a lot of the text and references in the article could be cut. But two independent sources is generally enough to clear WP:NORG if I'm not mistaken. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Religion Media Centre and The New Arab articles are secondary sources which heavily write about the article which is all that is needed acording to the guidelines. The other articles provide some background into the topic of moonsighting and the organisation as a whole. They have now also undergone a clean up, there was no need to flag this for deletion. TruthKnowledgeSeeker2025 (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your concerns about the language used and this will be addressed in future edits however all text used in the article is accurate, reliable and impartial mostly based on the secondary sources. TruthKnowledgeSeeker2025 (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A reason you mentioned; the history being full of editors who rejected it for it's language was before the article underwent a massive human cleanup and rewritten. TruthKnowledgeSeeker2025 (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further secondary sources alongside the two mentioned above now include Muslim Heritage and another article from the religon media centre written by a different author. There are also other sources such as from the Royal Museums Greenwich's website which speak about the planetary and astronomy shows and the annual Ramadan moonsigthing events hosted by the royal Observatory Greenwich. The Mayor Of London/London Gov website in the events section also mention these planetary shows alongside a seprate mention of the society being directly involved in the planning and preparation of various events inclduing the light up show of the London Eye something which has been written in the article and referenced with this. TruthKnowledgeSeeker2025 (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2025 (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

The Jewish Cause: An Introduction to a Different Israeli History

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

Would seem to fail WP:NBOOK and lacks other notability from verifiable reliable sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. $Destinyokhiria 💬$ 07:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Under a prior article title, this previously went to AfD as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Matter of the Jews. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, and Judaism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suck at searching in Hebrew but there is 1 review here so it's halfway to passing nbook. Was a source check done? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There appears to be one review of the book, under the "Critique of the book" external link in the article. I don't see any other reviews in my searches, I don't think we have enough to show notability for books. Oaktree b (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm relying on machine translation and could very well be wrong, but it seems like the external link "About the book, in Segula Magazine for Jewish History" is also a review. It's just a scan of a page and I can't find a way to access the magazine issue, but based on a machine translation it reads and is presented like a second review of the book. Hopefully someone else might be able to confirm? MCE89 (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting that there was a previous AfD in 2021 under a previous page title, which ended in no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Matter of the Jews. MCE89 (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the cited Segula Magazine page is a substantive and non-trivial review of this specific book, discussing its main thesis and explaining Berent's views of the subject as presented in the book. It might be not as long and deep as Dr Levin's review of the book, but it certainly qualifies under Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria as a second review. Guybas (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book qualifies under Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria as having at least two real, non-trivial reviews, in respected sources that are independent of the book itself:

Nine page long, wide and deep Dr Levin's review
One page long, substantive and precise Segula Magazine review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guybas (talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pass of NBOOK per above. gidonb (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

misc.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. I have some doubts on the appropriateness of these userboxes for userspace. Arguments that anti-boxes are often a worse idea than pro-boxes are strong. Expansions of CSD T1 to include userspace transclusions have, however, been clearly rejected by the community and I must take this into account when considering the arguments for speedy deletion per CSD T1. IronGargoyle 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Selfworm/Userboxes/NotCatholic

Renominating, as the userbox is excessively divisive (I'm never going to join your religion, because it is false). Flamgirlant 11:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous xfd

Also nominating:

These "not" templates are not only divisive, but also rather useless. If someone puts a template which says "This user is a member of religion X", then it is implicit that he is not a member of any other religion. The only purpose of these userboxes is to show a vendetta towards the religion. And that is how the userboxes have been used, most particularly the NotMuslim one.

Delete, per reasons above.--Flamgirlant 11:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as contrary to the guidelines listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content. Describe what or who you are, not what or who you are not. - jc37 13:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they set a really miserable precedent for other potential userboxes. What will we have next? This user is not a Martian, or a rakshasha, or a demon from hell, or any number of other ridiculous, potentially counterproductive things? Let's nip this potentially troublesome precedent here and now. There is at least a potential utility for such userboxes. If, for instance, I wanted to say that I was a Saudi citizen, but not a Muslim, or some other similar am/not situations. But these userboxes fall well short of supplying that sort of potentially useful information. John Carter 13:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Bertrand Russel could write a book about why he was not a Christian, why not a userbox? --Itub 13:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No strong opinion In the earlier discussion, I opted to keep because, if it doesn't bother me that you're not Jewish (and I am), I don't see why it should bother anyone. Now I'm not so sure. I think a reasoable compromise would allow the two or three users who have these templates on their userpages to subst them, but delete the templates from further use. Yechiel Man 14:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- Why are we doing this again? Was there some problem with the first MFD? Has there been some significant change to policy? This almost seems in bad faith -- the previous MFD was properly executed, had strong participation, and was properly closed with a clear consensus. Once again, there is no reason to censor userboxen. If a user wants to say he's not christian/jewish/muslim, who cares? Censorship is teh bad. /Blaxthos 14:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I don't care if they're in userspace, they still can fall under T1 as the intent is for transclusion. Will ^(talk) 15:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I tried to nominate these once anonymously, and the result surprised me as keep. If the community has decided not to even allow categories of such things, then this is clearly divisive and inflammatory. For all the stated reasons above - per jc37, uncivil, etc. The problem doesn't lie in "it doesn't bother me if you're not X religion like me", the problem is that the point of the userbox is to deride X religion. The Evil Spartan 16:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hello, I am the creator of these userboxes. This topic has already been discussed here. Has Wikipedia's deletion policy changed since the last discussion? Why is the result of the previous discussion invalid?
These boxes are not intended to be divisive nor are they divisive. These boxes do not radiate ill-will towards others; they do not imply hatred of religion or of those who follow a religion. Their purpose is simply to inform wikiusers that the user does not follow any of the world's major religions and that they do not intend to ever do so. I could create a userbox that states that I have no religious beliefs whatsoever (or would that too be considered divisive and inflammatory?)
Furthermore, if these userboxes are divisive and inflammatory then so are these userboxes:

This user believes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as likely as creationism.

insults creationists.

User:UBX/antifeminism

Explicitly against feminism

And there are many more userboxes like them. selfworm^Talk) 17:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS?--Flamgirlant 17:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the discussions in the previous AfD. I really don't think deleting these is helpful, and saying "I am not X" is not the same as saying "X is bad". DES ^(talk) 17:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all on the condition that "and never will be" is removed. Keep the anti-feminism userbox period; it is just as fine to be anti-feminist as to be feminist. Delete flying spaghetti monster. — $PЯINGrαgђ 18:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still keep. As xaosflux noted in closing the last discussion, "User space is generally given a wide range of latitude." User:Warlordjohncarter and Candy-Panda expressed that there may be situations where it may be helpful in making the encyclopedia for a user to clarify that they are not a member of a certain religion (for example, if they edit many articles related to it), which I agree with. I think that understanding each other (especially our potential biases) can only improve the product we create. I disagree with Flamgirlant's assertion that stating membership in one religion implies non-membership in others, but at the same time find it irrelevant as one may want to state non-membership without wanting to state membership. Finally, I don't myself find these to be inherently divisive, but I agree with User:Springeragh that removing the "and never will be" portion would probably make these more palatable to their opponents. — The Storm Surfer 18:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It has been discussed and there was consensus for keep, but consensus can change and there is, I think, general consensus for the phrase above, "Describe what or who you are, not what or who you are not", and I think that should apply here. What you are is a basis for collaboration. What you are not is not a basis for collaboration. --Bduke 23:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as I was the admin involved in closing this the last time, though if the issue is with the wording, these should be able to be refactored, no? To the nom: as far as them being pseudo-templates, if people with these boxes had that statement on their userpage as a text line, would you be opening up user-conduct-rfc's on the users? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good point. But now that you say it, what will happen if an RfC like that does happen? — $PЯINGrαgђ 01:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I personally would have brought it up on ANI or something first. But since we are dealing with userboxen here, and because they were previously nom'd, I put it up again. We already have enough factionalism when people describe what they are; who knows what can of worms will open if we let people divide themselves based on what they aren't? People in general oppose things more than they do support things. Someone who identifies as "This user is not and will never be pro-choice" will frequently be solicited for "their input" on certain issues (and believe me, this happens). It flips WP:AGF on its head.--Flamgirlant 02:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comment: Take for example this mfd. I notified every single active user who participated in the previous mfd. However, there are some Wikipedians who only notify users who are sympathetic to their views. How do they know they are sympathetic to their views? Userboxes. Many times I have seen "Hi, I saw your userpage and I was wondering if you could support my POV on article X"... if I had a dime for every time...--Flamgirlant 02:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment A penny every time would make me a rich man. — $PЯINGrαgђ 02:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment hehe.--Flamgirlant 02:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Discussion prior to this time were made without this discussion being transcluded on WP:MFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing divisive about these templates--Sefringle^Talk 04:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 05:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think it is fair to point out that you are currently using the notmuslim template, and also you had a related earlier userbox that was divisive and inflammatory and was speedily deleted. Care to explain?--Flamgirlant 06:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I also can't help but notice that you have nominated several other userboxes as well. Care to clarify your stance on this issue? Thanks.--Flamgirlant 06:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm not entitled to my opinion because I have the userbox in my userspace? Those other templates are actually inflammatory, unlike these ones.--Sefringle^Talk 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As much as my stomach churns at some of this stuff, the UBX wars were ended on the principle of the German solution. Rekindling it is a bad thing ... so keep. --BigDT 05:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, ridiculously divisive, inflammatory and soapboxing. Please see WP:NOT. They can be construed as offensive. WP:CSD#T1 applies when content is transcluded and used as templates. Userspace shouldn't be used as a means to get around T1. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete All via CSD T1. Now, before you lynch me, please allow me to explain. CSD T1 was created in order to prevent userboxes such as this one from existing. However, when the userbox wars were underway, people moved all the userboxes to the User namespace, in an effort to skirt a policy they knew their userboxes violated. In essence, any page created to be used as a template--regardless of what namespace it is in--is a template. While this userbox may not be in the template namespace, it is a template, and thus CSD T1 applies. In regards to whether or not it actually is divisive, the fact that the community is divided over that fact is pretty evident. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a complete and total rewrite of history. The German Userbox solution was imposed on the pro-UBX crowd, not suggested by it. It was never even a suggestion that T1 would apply to userfied userboxes - T1 was all about keeping unencyclopedic content out of encyclopedic space. --BigDT 13:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - T1 has been as still is about keeping unencyclopedic content out of templates. Just because they're in userspace doesn't make them any less of a template. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course, you are welcome to your opinion on the appropriateness of userboxes in userspace, but to say that people started trying to game the system by moving userboxes out of template space is just plain false - it didn't happen that way. I have neither the time nor the desire to debate whether something being transcluded is a template. I only say this: (1) the German userbox solution has kept the peace for a year - rekindling the UBX wars is an all around bad idea and (2) Jimbo imposed T1 himself [21] and later said that the issue was having them in "official" namespaces [22] - in other words, the problem is Wikipedia: and template: space and the standard of tolerance in user: space is much higher. --BigDT 14:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -If it really had said, "because it's false", then that'd easily push it over the edge. As it is, it may not be terribly helpful, but it certainly isn't inflammatory. It doesn't directly insult or attack catholocism (merely express an opinion that nobody asked for). A little lattitude here. Bladestorm 11:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT a free web host for soap boxing. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator: divisive and inflammatory userboxes. Acalamari 19:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we just had an mfd on these (see their talk pages). They are not divisive. Just because ~~you~~ don't like the opinion listed in them. Divisive and inflammatory means so bad they give wikipedia a bad name. These hardly do that. -N 20:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Struck the "you" from my above comment per below. I perhaps should have said "a theoretical individual who would dislike this so much they would nominate it for MfD." -N 22:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please no personal attacks. This has nothing to do with me.--Flamgirlant 21:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I must be obtuse. I can't see how stating that you don't like these userboxes is a personal attack. -N 21:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment You said that I don't like the opinion listed in them. That is a personal attack because you are putting words in my mouth.--Flamgirlant 21:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, I misinterpreted "the userbox is excessively divisive" as meaning you don't like the userbox. I guess my 99th percentile reading level is too low. -N 21:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What? You said "you don't like the opinion listed in them". When did I say that I don't like the opinion expressed in the boxes? --Flamgirlant 21:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        My mistake. -N 22:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on User:Selfworm See folks, this is exactly what I mean when I say userboxes are bad.--Flamgirlant 21:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ad hominem--Sefringle^Talk 07:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. BigDT makes a good point and even though I'm personally not too crazy about any of those userboxes (I also fail to see the point but that's hardly relevant in this context) I don't consider them excessively divisive either. There's a point, in my humble opinion, when when we take political correctness just a bit too far and this criterion (divisiveness) is a bit vague anyway. I have, for instance, a vim-related UBX on my userpage -- it's pretty clear that I like vi(m) which in turn must mean that I don't like emacs, right? And, yes, I do realize that there's a difference between broadcasting one's religious beliefs and one's preference in editors. There is also a procedural component to this !vote. I don't mean any offense but personally, I expect at least a brief explanation with regard to what has changed since the last MFD. Otherwise, it just looks a bit like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- S ^up? 22:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added User:Selfworm/NotAtheist userbox. Also, am I allowed to vote in this discussion? selfworm^Talk) 22:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this isn't really a vote. It's a discussion to determine consensus. Any member of the community in good standing can participate in the discussion but it's generally considered accepted practice that any areas where a possible conflict of interest may arise, be noted as such. -- S ^up? 22:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This are innocuous. It is not insulting a [ ] to say you are not a [ ] and do not intend to become one. If they really wish to convert you, it won't even keep them away. Anything that is not actually an insult is OK in a user box. DGG 04:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Polemic userboxes are divisive. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Divisive, fails to advance the encyclopedic mission in any way, and come on - we've already got way too many UBX's detailing what users are. Now we need them detailing the infinite number of things which users are not and will never be? How about "This user is not, and never will be, able to dunk a basketball"? MastCell ^Talk 20:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is tiresome to have to repeat this, but userspace is not a platform for partisan pronouncements. This material does nothing to advance the project.Proabivouac 05:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP It is important for Wikipedians to be able to express their religious views on their user pages. All religions should have such boxes, as opposed to just Islam. Padishah5000 18:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: They can express their religious views, i.e. with "This user is Muslim" or "This user is Catholic". This particular userbox seems to serve no purpose other than expressing disapproval of other peoples' religion. I don't see how that can possibly be constructive or advance the encyclopedic mission, and I think the one opposing Islam in similar terms should also be deleted. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please just leave users alone. Trying to purge all userboxes that express a religious or political opinion from WP despite the WP:UBM compromise is going to cause much more pain than it is worth. —Ashley Y 21:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these and anything similar. -- Visviva 08:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these userboxes could be useful for someone who wants to say they are Jewish but not part of the Jewish religion, similar if someone is Arab and wants to specify they are not part of the Muslim religion. --Candy-Panda 10:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Userspace doesn't have to be NPOV, there's nothing wrong with the userboxen, precedent, I don't see any reason for a deletion. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - We had the userbox migration to solve these problems. Let it go. You wouldn't delete a userpage if a user wrote that on their page, so don't delete the template. —METS501 (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per MastCell and Proabivouac. ITAQALLAH 01:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an innocuous way for users to express their stances. These stances influence editing to a greater or lesser degree. Arrow740 05:18, 28 June 2007 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.