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:

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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion/archive

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 keep‎. No support for deletion/draftification beyond the nominator. Consensus is that the subject is notable and warrants a standalone page, and concerns about WP:SYNTH can be addressed through normal editorial processes. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Divine embodiment

Divine embodiment (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 appears to be a large WP:SYNTH attempt to draw a thread between specific practices in Western Esotericism and practices which exist in other religions. While there's certainly a rhetorical thread linking them, the specific topics in question either have their own articles (Deity yoga, Jewish mysticism) or straight up are questionably included here. I went through trying to figure out if there's possibly an article here as I have some expertise on only one of the constituent topics, but I think there's way, way too much WP:SYNTH here attempting to link disparate traditions on the basis of the similarity of their practices, rather than pointing to a wider sourced discussion of those topics as synthesized.

Essentially this article seems to be trying to link practices which are not so strongly linked within Religious Studies and I'm uncertain it's possible to write a single article about that without so many caveats on the different interpretations between faiths that it becomes meaningless in the absence of rock-solid scholarly sourcing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Buddhism, Judaism, and Spirituality. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, the methods are explicitly linked and compared in psychological discussions, for example, Friedman, Harris; et al. (2024). "Models of Spiritual and Transpersonal Development". In Miller, Lisa J. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Psychology and Spirituality. Oxford University Press. pp. 149–172. ISBN 978-0-19-090553-8. Skyerise (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  That's a psychology text. The article explicitly is drawing synthesis through religious studies, and while I acknowledge interdisciplinary expertise is useful and definitely not wrong, it seems like quite a house of cards to link multiple disparate religious traditions through in the absence of anything at all from either the field of religious studies or the scholarship of those religions themselves. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  The term is used throughout religious studies literature as well, as evidenced by the titles of many of the sources. The topic of "divine embodiment" exists as a notable scholarly category, and certainly deserves coverage in Wikipedia:

  • Collins, Dawn (2020). "Seeing the Gods: Divine Embodiment through Visualisation in Tantric Buddhist Practice". In Rosen, Aaron; Child, Louise (eds.). Religion and Sight. Equinox Publishing. doi:10.1558/equinox.35753 (inactive 13 April 2025).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of April 2025 (link)
  • Fiorella, K. (2023). "Thinking in a marrow Bone: Embodiment in Vajrayana Buddhism and Psychoanalysis". Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association. 71 (2): 277–309. doi:10.1177/00030651231174237. PMID 37357930.
  • Gray, D. B. (2006). "Mandala of the Self: Embodiment, Practice, and Identity Construction in the Cakrasamvara Tradition". Journal of Religious History. 30 (3): 294–310. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9809.2006.00495.x.
  • Holdrege, B. A. (2015). Bhakti and Embodiment: Fashioning Divine Bodies and Devotional Bodies in Krsna Bhakti. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-66909-8.
  • Orlov, A. A. (2024). Embodiment of Divine Knowledge in Early Judaism. Routledge Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-032-10591-8.
  • Washburn, M. (2012). Embodied Spirituality in a Sacred World. State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-8626-9.

Right, but that's not the same thing as linking these traditions, which is why there's a WP:SYNTH concern. The expression of divine embodiment in Deity yoga, for example, is fundamentally a distinct think from that in Jewish mysticism, to such a degree that even in the article we're discussing it's basically two parallel explanations with minimal overlap. That's the WP:SYNTH issue, here. You seem to be running with "there is a term for this sort of thing" and taking it to the extreme of "Therefore these things are relatable". Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The psychological and spiritual overviews describe them as manifestations of the same psychological views and processes, and each covers most if not all of the traditions listed. Each of the more focuses sources makes comparisons with one or more of the others. Also, the relationship between the psychological and theological aspects of embodiment is discussed in depth in Manning, Russell Re, ed. (2020). Mutual Enrichment Between Psychology and Theology. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-13149-6. The article doesn't assert historical continuity except where that continuity is documented. Your criticism of the article is unfounded, and I expect your threadbare argument will be rejected by those with deeper knowledge of the topic. Skyerise (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, I probably am one of the Wikipedia editors more knowledgeable on this topic. That’s why I’m objecting to the form the article has taken; the existence of a category of practice within scholarship is not the same thing as a statement of the real existence of that category. An article about the academic concept itself may warrant existence, but what’s there now is either more broad collection in disparate information weakly linked by a few authors’ use of a specific term at best and WP:SYNTH at worst. Look at Prayer, for a similar example without the immediate launch into a signal boost for western esotericism. But I think we should let this play out without us creating walls of text. :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I’d like to address some of the concerns raised, particularly regarding the potential WP:SYNTH and the article’s approach to comparing practices across various traditions. The primary goal of the article is to explore phenomenological similarities and shared practices within different spiritual traditions, specifically regarding divine embodiment. The article draws on scholarly sources from psychology, religious studies, and spirituality, which explore how these practices—despite differences in context—lead to similar experiential transformations.

It’s important to clarify that this article does not claim a unified historical or doctrinal lineage for these practices. Instead, it looks at how these traditions approach embodiment and transformation, acknowledging the significant cultural, theological, and historical distinctions that exist. For instance, deity yoga in Tantric Buddhism and theurgy in Neoplatonism are discussed in parallel, not as identical practices, but as different manifestations of a shared psychological goal—the embodiment of divine presence.

The comparison made in the article is grounded in modern religious studies and psychological research that recognize these practices as part of broader categories of spiritual development. Collins (2020) and Fiorella (2023), among others, provide frameworks for understanding how different traditions of embodiment can lead to similar transformational experiences—even if the underlying theological concepts differ significantly. This approach is informed by a growing body of scholarship that seeks to understand common patterns in human spiritual experiences, rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all explanation on them.

In response to the concern about WP:SYNTH, I agree that the distinctions between these traditions should be carefully maintained. The article will be revised to emphasize these differences more clearly and to ensure that the article does not overstate the similarities between the practices. At the same time, the article acknowledges that while these practices may differ in their theological underpinnings, they often serve psychological functions that are remarkably similar.

I would also like to emphasize that this article does not make a case for a universal interpretation of divine embodiment, but rather documents how this concept is approached and interpreted by various academic disciplines across different spiritual traditions. This broader, comparative view is essential for understanding the role of embodiment in spiritual practice, and it’s an important area of scholarly interest within both psychology and religious studies. Skyerise (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. My own views on whether the page is WP:SYNTH aside -- see the talk page where I had a tense conversation with Skyerise on this topic given our prior disagreements -- it's a very real topic and method in Western esotericism, and at most the page should reflect that -- it should not be deleted. On the topic of tantra in particular, there is clear evidence that deity yoga influenced Western esotericism. Two sources on this topic which can enrich the page:

• Hackett, Paul G. (2017-10-23). The Assimilation of Yogic Religions through Pop Culture. Lanham: Lexington Books. ISBN 978-1-4985-5230-1.
• Djurdjevic, G. (2014-05-21). India and the Occult. New York (N.Y.): Springer. ISBN 978-1-137-40499-2.

My own objections were towards treating divine embodiment or the godform as trans-historical, rather than produced by the interaction of ultimately independent traditions meeting in the modern West. This alone is not enough to delete, imo. wound theology◈ 13:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Would it be fair to summarize your stance as “Keep, but complete rewrite”? Because I don’t think I’d fundamentally object to this being an article about Western Esotericism, and yet it seems to be written sort of in a way to legitimize Western Esotericism in a historical religious framework? Basically what I’m trying to understand is if you think the article already here, rather than a completely different one that doesn’t yet exist at this article’s name, is acceptable. At that point draftify may be a better solution? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The article is fine as it is, just a little unbalanced and I've already brought up my grievances with Skyerise, which she was receptive of. There are many categories in the study of esotericism, both East and West, which for better or worse, are rooted in that same syncretism and perennialism. Even the term Esoteric Buddhism, which is pretty standard in academia, was coined by a Theosophist based on, well, racist ideas about how white occultists knew Buddhism better than Asians. So long as the page is explicit about how and why this idea of a perennial divine embodiment came about -- people like Crowley and Blavatsky being orientalists and largely misunderstanding Vajrayana -- then it should be fine. At most, it might need a name change to Godform since "divine embodiment" might be too general. wound theology◈ 14:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Interestingly, my initial contact with this concept didn't come from either Crowley or Blavatsky, but rather Beyer's Cult of Tara, which is much broader than the title implies, being a rather broader coverage described in the subtitle, Magic and Ritual in Tibet. Skyerise (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you about the trans-historical view. My intent has always been to add material about the influences the traditions had upon each other. This is, however, harder to source, so my initial foray into the topic was to delineate the traditions and usages involved and covered by reliable sources, then to start adding the historical developments and interactions where possible. I acknowledge that a more nuanced approach is required to avoid over-generalizing or implying direct historical continuity where there is none. The current structure does aim to present each tradition on its own terms, but I understand that a clearer historical framework is needed to show how these practices might have influenced one another, especially in the context of modern Western esotericism. The sources you mentioned, such as Hackett and Djurdjevic, would certainly provide valuable insights to enrich the article. They will help ground the discussion of divine embodiment within a more historical context and clarify the interaction between Eastern and Western traditions in more specific terms. Thank you for your support. Skyerise (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you need to decide if this is an article about modern Western Esotericism or a historical practice among religions which will necessarily relegate modern Western Esotericism to a minor mention just on WP:UNDUE grounds. It’s not tenable to have an article about a broad pan-religious topic spend equal time on a small (semi-)NRM as it does on Judaism and Buddhism. In your description of your intent here it looks like you’re trying to focus on Western Esotericism regardless of the weighting in sources? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is like two days old and I'm not done working on it. Your animus to Hermeticism in general is noted. Skyerise (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I have no antipathy towards Hermeticism or Western Esotericism. Hell I’m one of Esoterica’s Patreon patrons. That doesn’t mean that it warrants equal mention as every other religious and spiritual tradition, collectively, in an article that isn’t explicitly about western esotericism. If you’re still working on it then draftifying seems like the best solution? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The article has already been rated B-class by an independent rater, so no. Why would I agree to draftify an article based on weak arguments for deletion when the article has already been recognized as superior content? Skyerise (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Look, I’m neither trying to pick a fight with you nor overly criticize your writing. You’re adding sources to the article “for use later” and on the talk page and AfD both have mentioned that the article isn’t finished, which seems like a reason to draftify to me, but we can leave it up to others. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of undeveloped stubs and articles under development. I had and have every right to move an article into main space once it is robust enough to stand on its own, even if it isn't "finished". That's how one gets contributions from other editors and constructive criticism. "Articles for Deletion is not cleanup". Adding sources to further reading is my process - I do it on many articles, most of which I didn't write myself. Your suggestion is ridiculous on its face, we have many articles with globalize tags or which are in other ways substantially incomplete, and we don't delete or draftify them. I invite contributions from other editors - the article is way past start class, and so far, you're the only editor who has a problem with it. I remain confident that the article will be kept. See also WP:IMPATIENT: "The article shouldn't be deleted for its current status only because no one has improved it yet. Such deletion would prevent editors from improving it in the future. Conversely it's not enough to promise to make the article better; editors should explain how to do it. If the editor fails to follow through on the promise, other editors who arrive later can step in and keep improving it. This way, the article's fate is not dependent on one single editor doing the work; Wikipedia is written in a collaborative way." Skyerise (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Let me be very clear: I think the article as is written, is so WP:SYNTH-rich that it shouldn't stand. If you feel there's a substantive article to be had in there, then given the current state of the article I believe draftifying it is the right call. Regardless of what it was assessed as during creation, since then two editors familiar with the material have expressed WP:SYNTH concerns, with each of those two editors falling on a different side of this AfD. I do not believe the article in its current form has surmountable problems and I think it needs a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. I struggle to see your reasoning here for the format of the article as anything other than WP:SYNTH, and I struggle to see how any version of this article could dedicate half its content to one of a multitude of traditions it applies to without an extremely good justification.

The primary goal of the article is to explore phenomenological similarities and shared practices within different spiritual traditions, specifically regarding divine embodiment.

The primary goal of any article should be presenting encyclopaedic information, not an exploratory endeavour to link phenomenon beyond what has been written in the established literature.

I may simply be wrong here in my read of this, and if I am then that's okay. We're all wrong at times, like when you said I had animus to Hermeticism. But I am not trying to tell you "I think this article is a bit messy and should be draftified before it's live", I'm saying I think the article as it is now unintentionally misreads readers into seeing a connection that simply isn't made in the literature in the way it's expressed here, and that this article, in my very possibly wrong opinion, shouldn't be live on Wikipedia until those concerns are addressed. But that is just one opinion and we're already making this unreadably long. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Yet you ignore that the connection is detailed in multiple sources, both in psychological and religious studies, even though I have listed those sources explicitly. And you further misrepresent my position by taking that sentence out of context, so let me make it clearer for you: The primary goal of the article is to explore phenomenological similarities and shared practices within different spiritual traditions, specifically regarding divine embodiment, as covered in the relevant secondary reliable sources. [italicized phrase added]. If you think the discussion is too long, perhaps you should stop trying to one-up me every time I reply. Skyerise (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously, wow, this is a full article which I'll have to read at length, like a good book, at some point soon. Meets GNG goes without saying even though said. Thanks to Skyerise for writing it, and to Warrenmck for nominating it which drew attention to the page, and to the comments of this educational discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  As a comment, GNG was never a concern with this article. The topic itself clearly is actually a thing within academic scholarship. The WP:SYNTH concerns cannot be addressed, I believe, without reading the article. Typically reading both the article and the reasons that it's been nominated in an AfD is a helpful step before voting, but I cannot speak to your process. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

This continued argumentation with everyone who disagrees with you is unseemly. It's making the page unnecessarily long. Either your deletion arguments were convincing or they are not. I find them unconvincing and two other editors (so far) also find them unconvincing. It it really necessary to repeat them every time another editor responds??? Skyerise (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Randy Kryn responded to a concern that was not raised (GNG) about an article he didn't read, per his own admission. It's fair to point out that GNG was never part of this discussion. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Then its fair to note that you just acknowledged the topic existing in academia, which invalidates your whole argument. I suggest you save yourself the embarrassment of a WP:SNOWBALL keep by withdrawing your nomination. Skyerise (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I did read much of it, and gave the page a good skim, before assuring to myself that it met GNG and then commenting. It's long, so I did not read every word but intend to. What I see in this is a future feature article. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: OP has just invalidated his own reason for deletion by saying The topic itself clearly is actually a thing within academic scholarship. Skyerise (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  Skyerise, you need to take about a thousand steps back and realize that an AfD isn't a personal attack. If anyone wants to take this note at face value the full context may be found here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  I suggest you take your own advice. Skyerise (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  In short your argument is basically WP:TNT but I don't think the article is so irreparably damaged that this would apply. Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  I do, but I'm 100% open to being wrong, hence the AfD process. And yeah, I really should have put WP:TNT as my reason above. Alas, there's only so many three letter acronyms following WP: a man can remember for instant recall. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Keep There is substantial psychological and psychoanalytic material on the subject both already cited and uncited but available through Wikipedia library (such as Transcendence and Its Shadow: A Depth Psychological Inquiry into Transcendence, the Transcendent Function, and Spiritual Bypassing. By: Tousignant, Maura, Psychological Perspectives, 00332925, Oct-Dec2023, Vol. 66, Issue 4) we don't delete topics with significant academic coverage just because the article is not yet perfect. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Strong Keep: There is an academic usage of the term and the concept is subject to research in fields of culture and religious studies. For example, here we can see an examination of the concept in view of Jewish tradition on Brill: Divine Embodiment in Philo of Alexandria in: Journal for the Study of Judaism Band 49 Ausgabe 2 (2018) VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Strong keep, already many strong arguments made in favor of keep. The article is not WP:SYNTH. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Eilistraee

Eilistraee (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:GNG. Virtually all of the citations are to D&D rulebooks and blog posts. Aside from that, they appear in one listacle. This is a massive in-world lore dump masquerading as an article and I'm kind of shocked it's survived this long. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep if more sources are found, otherwise merge to Drow. BOZ (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Question @The Squirrel Conspiracy: Have you also looked at the Google Scholar search? It may well not amount to much, but there are a number of hits which are not "D&D rulebooks and blog posts", so they should be checked out in accordance with WP:ARTN and WP:BEFORE. Daranios (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  • I see absolutely nothing usable there. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Daranios We have something from an academic German source (Blume), but it seems to be a passing mention, but maybe you could double check. Other than that, reception has a pathetic listicle entry... :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Piotrus: Thanks, I've seen that and added what I've found there. Not a lot, but not trivial either. (And it has become a convoluted sentence again, so if someone can phrase that better...) Daranios (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• comment from the above, [1] is a master's thesis that provides a brief bit of coverage. Certainly counts as a secondary source. [2] appears to be independent use of the character. That's not a lot, but one more source would get me to !vote to keep (maybe weakly depending on the source). Hobit (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment One other source I do find relevant and usable in the Google Scholar search is the PhD thesis "“Sounds Like It's Canon Now”: Texts and/as Truths in Transmedia Franchise Dungeons & Dragons". Has a lot of plot summary on Eilistraee, but also commentary on different characterization in Smedman's novels and earlier rulebooks. Daranios (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  That 2024 dissertation on D&D transmedia has a large focus on Eilistraee & the impact of Lisa Smedman's Lady Penitent trilogy on D&D narrative (pg232-269). I didn't go through every collection available in the Wikipedia Library but I went through some of the larger ones (JSTOR, ProQuest, Sage, Springer, Taylor & Francis, etc) and that dissertation was the only hit for "Eilistraee". Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment If kept, there's still way too much gameguide stuff here. Would this be better addressed as a pantheon article? Of course, that's complicated by different pantheons in different iterations of D&D... Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge reception to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities mention of this deity, as it is not fancruft, like 99% of this article :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  Corellon Larethian might be a decent target if the decision is to merge (similar to Lolth being merged to Drow); in the Forgotten Realms fiction, Eilistraee is his daughter and she' already highlighted a bit in that article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep If the reception we have now would be bolstered with said PhD thesis, and the plot summary would be trimmed back to an amount balanced with the non-plot sections of Publication history and Reception (and in part Background), we would have a non-stubby article which fullfils WP:NOTPLOT and has enough based on secondary source to fullfil WP:WHYN, i.e. a notable topic. That said, I am not fundamentally opposed to a merge, though my preferred target in such a case would be the Drow article in parallel to the discussion on Lolth. The commentary on Eilistraee we have now is closely related to the drow. Maybe a bit less so in the PhD thesis. List of Dungeons & Dragons deities or Corellon Larethian are also related topics and fine as merge targets, but in my view somewhat less suited. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Merge per all. Much of this lacks proper sourcing, or even violates WP:NOT. This is the normal basis for deleting or redirecting, but I see that the several keep !voters would also support a merge. Supporting this per WP:ATD and per WP:CONSENSUS. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to Drow per others. Most of the coverage seems to be associated with the Drow, so per WP:NOPAGE a merge here seems best. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Guru magazine also has a paragraph of summary and commentary on the presentation of Eilistraee's priesthood in The Drow of the Underdark. Daranios (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Tharizdun

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Tharizdun
• Articles for deletion/Tharizdun (2nd nomination)

Tharizdun (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)

Fictional deity from D&D. Reception is limited to two listicles or such. WP:GNG fail. BEFORE fails to find anything. Per WP:ATD-R, I suggest merging reception to the List of Dungeons & Dragons deities and redirecting this there (our article is just a list of appearances in D&D media and fancrufty description of in-universe history etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Games, and Religion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Refs 1, 6, 7, and 27 provide significant IRS or acceptable SPS coverage of the topic. Reception isn't mandatory, and even if it was, non-RS'es would be sufficient for that. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Inasmuch as reception is objective the reporting of a non-WP:Reliable source is not reliable, and inasmuch as it is subjective the opinion of a non-WP:Reliable source is not WP:DUE. TompaDompa (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
    • No, actually. As I've been told elsewhere recently, DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content, so there cannot possibly be a DUE violation if no RS has any viewpoints, because there's nothing to privilege there. Yeah, not sure I believe that, but even so: requiring the RS to be in one section for a fictional topic isn't supported by any policy or guideline to the best of my knowledge, even though it is certainly a best practice to include RS'ed reception when available. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
      • The very first sentence of WP:NPOV says All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. In other words, the viewpoints must come from WP:Reliable sources. I'm not sure quite what you are trying to say with DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content, so there cannot possibly be a DUE violation if no RS has any viewpoints, because there's nothing to privilege there, but my point was that if we're talking about the subjective parts of the reception, i.e. opinions/viewpoints, we need to use WP:Reliable sources. It would be rather nonsensical to say that the text of WP:DUE—Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.—somehow implies that we would defer to sources that are not reliable for their viewpoints if there are no reliable sources to use. Indeed, WP:DUE goes on to say Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. More importantly, DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content is technically correct but a bit misleading/WP:WikiLawyer-ish. Firstly, the content equivalent—WP:PROPORTION, which says that articles are supposed to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject—is just slightly further down from the WP:DUE section of WP:NPOV, and "due" is often used as shorthand for this as well (though it could be argued to strictly speaking be wrong to use "due" in this sense). Secondly, that X is worth mentioning, or indeed that Y is not worth mentioning, is a viewpoint. TompaDompa (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  Since the article is all plot, it has not been demonstrated that these sources meet WP:SIGCOV, and that they go beyond a plot summary. WP:ALLPLOT/WP:NOTPLOT (the latter being a policy) ask to be heard, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep There are plenty of reliable sources for inclusion and it would be good to keep something a bit more dispassionate about this central figure in D&D cosmology than you'll get from various fanwikis. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Greyhawk deities where this has an entry that is just a link to this page, but where other deities have a paragraph each. Not clear why this one gets special treatment. Claims that this has sourcing are quite debatable. Jclemens says some refs give acceptable SPS coverage of the topic. But WP:SPS sources do not contribute to the notability of the topic, and this is nearly everything (or else the sources are primary). Dragon magazine has an article about four deities, but Dragon is an official magazine for the D&D RP games and is thus not an independent source for notability. Who, outside of the game system itself, is writing articles about this deity? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Sirfurboy We do :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Selectively merge per Sirfurboy. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. We're missing sufficient coverage in sources that are both independent and reliable. Any WP:SPS can be summarized more briefly at another notable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Merge to List of Greyhawk deities per Sirfurboy. I'm also at a loss as to why this particular deity gets special treatment. The article does not meet WP:GNG, and it feels like a case of WP:DUE.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment' During the prior AfD one editor mentioned having access to independent magazine articles in Challenge Magazine and Pegasus Magazine that demonstrated significant independent coverage. These are not currently in the article so I reached out to that editor asking them if they can provide said sources. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

AD&D module WG4 The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun published 1982 originated the fictional deity, making it more familiar in D&D than most. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep There is WP:SIGCOV level coverage in secondary sources: the refs alluded to by Jclemens, but I also think the Oerth Journal sources can merit mentioning, with the caveat of appropriate weighting and attention to NPOV as per WP:UNDUE. If there are issues with that now, then we can and should fix it as per WP:FAILN as an alternative to deletion. I also prefer keeping the article as opposed to a merge on WP:CANYOUREADTHIS grounds and as per WP:NOPAGE: it is impractical to collect the information into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. Flip^andFlopped ツ 02:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Passed the last AfD and has since only become more popular (inclusion in Critical Role) and has had more refs added. If anything, it is better positioned and sourced now than then. Web Warlock (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sure there are plenty sources out there that go into detail on its role in Critical Role. BOZ (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  Passed the last AfD is not a policy based rationale. "I'm sure there are plenty sources" isn't, either. What sources exist? Who is writing about this deity? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  Then please find them and show how they meet SIGCOV. Otherwise its WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Merge There is no significant coverage that has been illustrated either in or outside of the article; plot summary does not contribute to notability of a subject, nor demonstrate impact. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Al-'Ashr al-Awakher

Al-'Ashr al-Awakher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No sources. No indication of notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Islam. UtherSRG (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

What the article is describing is the Night of Power. Whether this is a legitimate name for it is another question. If it is, redirect, but I don't think it is, so delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I haven't changed my mind. How is this different from the subject we already cover? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - in its original state, the article contained three references, none of which mentioned Al-'Ashr al-Awakher at all. Since nomination at AfD, the creating editor has added a rough translation from the urwiki article, but I am not sure what to make of the references that are now there - they look like primary sources to me, but my knowledge of Islam is quite poor. In any case, although my WP:BEFORE searches turned up references to the last ten nights of Ramadan and that the Night of Power occurs within that period (so the topic is possibly notable), I could find nothing linking the phrase Al-'Ashr al-Awakher with it at all. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - The first version of the article was incomplete, I've improved it now, so I think it should keep. Leo^talk 10:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per leo.Veritasphere (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable but sources can be improved. Mainly primary sources at the moment. Needs secondary sourcing. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more thorough, policy-based input, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - to expand on my previous delete recommendation, I could find no WP:SIGCOV of either Al-'Ashr al-Awakher or last ten nights of Ramadan in secondary sources: there are plenty of passing mentions, but only in the context of the Night of Power or I'tikāf, both of which are already the subject of articles. The current article, a rough translation of mentions in primary religious sources, should not be kept. SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete This seems like a promotional article. It says they are the best for worship and good deeds. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. The topic doesn't appear to be independently notable. Cortador (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ramadan or to Night of Power. Per nom, this article fails WP:GNG, and as such, should not be a standalone entry. All the references appear to be WP:PRIMARY, and I couldn't find any notable sources otherwise.--DesiMoore (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

---

Buddhism

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. No support for deletion/draftification beyond the nominator. Consensus is that the subject is notable and warrants a standalone page, and concerns about WP:SYNTH can be addressed through normal editorial processes. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Divine embodiment

Divine embodiment (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 appears to be a large WP:SYNTH attempt to draw a thread between specific practices in Western Esotericism and practices which exist in other religions. While there's certainly a rhetorical thread linking them, the specific topics in question either have their own articles (Deity yoga, Jewish mysticism) or straight up are questionably included here. I went through trying to figure out if there's possibly an article here as I have some expertise on only one of the constituent topics, but I think there's way, way too much WP:SYNTH here attempting to link disparate traditions on the basis of the similarity of their practices, rather than pointing to a wider sourced discussion of those topics as synthesized.

Essentially this article seems to be trying to link practices which are not so strongly linked within Religious Studies and I'm uncertain it's possible to write a single article about that without so many caveats on the different interpretations between faiths that it becomes meaningless in the absence of rock-solid scholarly sourcing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Buddhism, Judaism, and Spirituality. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, the methods are explicitly linked and compared in psychological discussions, for example, Friedman, Harris; et al. (2024). "Models of Spiritual and Transpersonal Development". In Miller, Lisa J. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Psychology and Spirituality. Oxford University Press. pp. 149–172. ISBN 978-0-19-090553-8. Skyerise (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  That's a psychology text. The article explicitly is drawing synthesis through religious studies, and while I acknowledge interdisciplinary expertise is useful and definitely not wrong, it seems like quite a house of cards to link multiple disparate religious traditions through in the absence of anything at all from either the field of religious studies or the scholarship of those religions themselves. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  The term is used throughout religious studies literature as well, as evidenced by the titles of many of the sources. The topic of "divine embodiment" exists as a notable scholarly category, and certainly deserves coverage in Wikipedia:

  • Collins, Dawn (2020). "Seeing the Gods: Divine Embodiment through Visualisation in Tantric Buddhist Practice". In Rosen, Aaron; Child, Louise (eds.). Religion and Sight. Equinox Publishing. doi:10.1558/equinox.35753 (inactive 13 April 2025).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of April 2025 (link)
  • Fiorella, K. (2023). "Thinking in a marrow Bone: Embodiment in Vajrayana Buddhism and Psychoanalysis". Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association. 71 (2): 277–309. doi:10.1177/00030651231174237. PMID 37357930.
  • Gray, D. B. (2006). "Mandala of the Self: Embodiment, Practice, and Identity Construction in the Cakrasamvara Tradition". Journal of Religious History. 30 (3): 294–310. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9809.2006.00495.x.
  • Holdrege, B. A. (2015). Bhakti and Embodiment: Fashioning Divine Bodies and Devotional Bodies in Krsna Bhakti. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-66909-8.
  • Orlov, A. A. (2024). Embodiment of Divine Knowledge in Early Judaism. Routledge Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-032-10591-8.
  • Washburn, M. (2012). Embodied Spirituality in a Sacred World. State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-8626-9.

Right, but that's not the same thing as linking these traditions, which is why there's a WP:SYNTH concern. The expression of divine embodiment in Deity yoga, for example, is fundamentally a distinct think from that in Jewish mysticism, to such a degree that even in the article we're discussing it's basically two parallel explanations with minimal overlap. That's the WP:SYNTH issue, here. You seem to be running with "there is a term for this sort of thing" and taking it to the extreme of "Therefore these things are relatable". Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The psychological and spiritual overviews describe them as manifestations of the same psychological views and processes, and each covers most if not all of the traditions listed. Each of the more focuses sources makes comparisons with one or more of the others. Also, the relationship between the psychological and theological aspects of embodiment is discussed in depth in Manning, Russell Re, ed. (2020). Mutual Enrichment Between Psychology and Theology. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-13149-6. The article doesn't assert historical continuity except where that continuity is documented. Your criticism of the article is unfounded, and I expect your threadbare argument will be rejected by those with deeper knowledge of the topic. Skyerise (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, I probably am one of the Wikipedia editors more knowledgeable on this topic. That’s why I’m objecting to the form the article has taken; the existence of a category of practice within scholarship is not the same thing as a statement of the real existence of that category. An article about the academic concept itself may warrant existence, but what’s there now is either more broad collection in disparate information weakly linked by a few authors’ use of a specific term at best and WP:SYNTH at worst. Look at Prayer, for a similar example without the immediate launch into a signal boost for western esotericism. But I think we should let this play out without us creating walls of text. :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I’d like to address some of the concerns raised, particularly regarding the potential WP:SYNTH and the article’s approach to comparing practices across various traditions. The primary goal of the article is to explore phenomenological similarities and shared practices within different spiritual traditions, specifically regarding divine embodiment. The article draws on scholarly sources from psychology, religious studies, and spirituality, which explore how these practices—despite differences in context—lead to similar experiential transformations.

It’s important to clarify that this article does not claim a unified historical or doctrinal lineage for these practices. Instead, it looks at how these traditions approach embodiment and transformation, acknowledging the significant cultural, theological, and historical distinctions that exist. For instance, deity yoga in Tantric Buddhism and theurgy in Neoplatonism are discussed in parallel, not as identical practices, but as different manifestations of a shared psychological goal—the embodiment of divine presence.

The comparison made in the article is grounded in modern religious studies and psychological research that recognize these practices as part of broader categories of spiritual development. Collins (2020) and Fiorella (2023), among others, provide frameworks for understanding how different traditions of embodiment can lead to similar transformational experiences—even if the underlying theological concepts differ significantly. This approach is informed by a growing body of scholarship that seeks to understand common patterns in human spiritual experiences, rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all explanation on them.

In response to the concern about WP:SYNTH, I agree that the distinctions between these traditions should be carefully maintained. The article will be revised to emphasize these differences more clearly and to ensure that the article does not overstate the similarities between the practices. At the same time, the article acknowledges that while these practices may differ in their theological underpinnings, they often serve psychological functions that are remarkably similar.

I would also like to emphasize that this article does not make a case for a universal interpretation of divine embodiment, but rather documents how this concept is approached and interpreted by various academic disciplines across different spiritual traditions. This broader, comparative view is essential for understanding the role of embodiment in spiritual practice, and it’s an important area of scholarly interest within both psychology and religious studies. Skyerise (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. My own views on whether the page is WP:SYNTH aside -- see the talk page where I had a tense conversation with Skyerise on this topic given our prior disagreements -- it's a very real topic and method in Western esotericism, and at most the page should reflect that -- it should not be deleted. On the topic of tantra in particular, there is clear evidence that deity yoga influenced Western esotericism. Two sources on this topic which can enrich the page:

• Hackett, Paul G. (2017-10-23). The Assimilation of Yogic Religions through Pop Culture. Lanham: Lexington Books. ISBN 978-1-4985-5230-1.
• Djurdjevic, G. (2014-05-21). India and the Occult. New York (N.Y.): Springer. ISBN 978-1-137-40499-2.

My own objections were towards treating divine embodiment or the godform as trans-historical, rather than produced by the interaction of ultimately independent traditions meeting in the modern West. This alone is not enough to delete, imo. wound theology◈ 13:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Would it be fair to summarize your stance as “Keep, but complete rewrite”? Because I don’t think I’d fundamentally object to this being an article about Western Esotericism, and yet it seems to be written sort of in a way to legitimize Western Esotericism in a historical religious framework? Basically what I’m trying to understand is if you think the article already here, rather than a completely different one that doesn’t yet exist at this article’s name, is acceptable. At that point draftify may be a better solution? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The article is fine as it is, just a little unbalanced and I've already brought up my grievances with Skyerise, which she was receptive of. There are many categories in the study of esotericism, both East and West, which for better or worse, are rooted in that same syncretism and perennialism. Even the term Esoteric Buddhism, which is pretty standard in academia, was coined by a Theosophist based on, well, racist ideas about how white occultists knew Buddhism better than Asians. So long as the page is explicit about how and why this idea of a perennial divine embodiment came about -- people like Crowley and Blavatsky being orientalists and largely misunderstanding Vajrayana -- then it should be fine. At most, it might need a name change to Godform since "divine embodiment" might be too general. wound theology◈ 14:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Interestingly, my initial contact with this concept didn't come from either Crowley or Blavatsky, but rather Beyer's Cult of Tara, which is much broader than the title implies, being a rather broader coverage described in the subtitle, Magic and Ritual in Tibet. Skyerise (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you about the trans-historical view. My intent has always been to add material about the influences the traditions had upon each other. This is, however, harder to source, so my initial foray into the topic was to delineate the traditions and usages involved and covered by reliable sources, then to start adding the historical developments and interactions where possible. I acknowledge that a more nuanced approach is required to avoid over-generalizing or implying direct historical continuity where there is none. The current structure does aim to present each tradition on its own terms, but I understand that a clearer historical framework is needed to show how these practices might have influenced one another, especially in the context of modern Western esotericism. The sources you mentioned, such as Hackett and Djurdjevic, would certainly provide valuable insights to enrich the article. They will help ground the discussion of divine embodiment within a more historical context and clarify the interaction between Eastern and Western traditions in more specific terms. Thank you for your support. Skyerise (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you need to decide if this is an article about modern Western Esotericism or a historical practice among religions which will necessarily relegate modern Western Esotericism to a minor mention just on WP:UNDUE grounds. It’s not tenable to have an article about a broad pan-religious topic spend equal time on a small (semi-)NRM as it does on Judaism and Buddhism. In your description of your intent here it looks like you’re trying to focus on Western Esotericism regardless of the weighting in sources? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is like two days old and I'm not done working on it. Your animus to Hermeticism in general is noted. Skyerise (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I have no antipathy towards Hermeticism or Western Esotericism. Hell I’m one of Esoterica’s Patreon patrons. That doesn’t mean that it warrants equal mention as every other religious and spiritual tradition, collectively, in an article that isn’t explicitly about western esotericism. If you’re still working on it then draftifying seems like the best solution? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The article has already been rated B-class by an independent rater, so no. Why would I agree to draftify an article based on weak arguments for deletion when the article has already been recognized as superior content? Skyerise (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Look, I’m neither trying to pick a fight with you nor overly criticize your writing. You’re adding sources to the article “for use later” and on the talk page and AfD both have mentioned that the article isn’t finished, which seems like a reason to draftify to me, but we can leave it up to others. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of undeveloped stubs and articles under development. I had and have every right to move an article into main space once it is robust enough to stand on its own, even if it isn't "finished". That's how one gets contributions from other editors and constructive criticism. "Articles for Deletion is not cleanup". Adding sources to further reading is my process - I do it on many articles, most of which I didn't write myself. Your suggestion is ridiculous on its face, we have many articles with globalize tags or which are in other ways substantially incomplete, and we don't delete or draftify them. I invite contributions from other editors - the article is way past start class, and so far, you're the only editor who has a problem with it. I remain confident that the article will be kept. See also WP:IMPATIENT: "The article shouldn't be deleted for its current status only because no one has improved it yet. Such deletion would prevent editors from improving it in the future. Conversely it's not enough to promise to make the article better; editors should explain how to do it. If the editor fails to follow through on the promise, other editors who arrive later can step in and keep improving it. This way, the article's fate is not dependent on one single editor doing the work; Wikipedia is written in a collaborative way." Skyerise (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Let me be very clear: I think the article as is written, is so WP:SYNTH-rich that it shouldn't stand. If you feel there's a substantive article to be had in there, then given the current state of the article I believe draftifying it is the right call. Regardless of what it was assessed as during creation, since then two editors familiar with the material have expressed WP:SYNTH concerns, with each of those two editors falling on a different side of this AfD. I do not believe the article in its current form has surmountable problems and I think it needs a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. I struggle to see your reasoning here for the format of the article as anything other than WP:SYNTH, and I struggle to see how any version of this article could dedicate half its content to one of a multitude of traditions it applies to without an extremely good justification.

The primary goal of the article is to explore phenomenological similarities and shared practices within different spiritual traditions, specifically regarding divine embodiment.

The primary goal of any article should be presenting encyclopaedic information, not an exploratory endeavour to link phenomenon beyond what has been written in the established literature.

I may simply be wrong here in my read of this, and if I am then that's okay. We're all wrong at times, like when you said I had animus to Hermeticism. But I am not trying to tell you "I think this article is a bit messy and should be draftified before it's live", I'm saying I think the article as it is now unintentionally misreads readers into seeing a connection that simply isn't made in the literature in the way it's expressed here, and that this article, in my very possibly wrong opinion, shouldn't be live on Wikipedia until those concerns are addressed. But that is just one opinion and we're already making this unreadably long. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Yet you ignore that the connection is detailed in multiple sources, both in psychological and religious studies, even though I have listed those sources explicitly. And you further misrepresent my position by taking that sentence out of context, so let me make it clearer for you: The primary goal of the article is to explore phenomenological similarities and shared practices within different spiritual traditions, specifically regarding divine embodiment, as covered in the relevant secondary reliable sources. [italicized phrase added]. If you think the discussion is too long, perhaps you should stop trying to one-up me every time I reply. Skyerise (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously, wow, this is a full article which I'll have to read at length, like a good book, at some point soon. Meets GNG goes without saying even though said. Thanks to Skyerise for writing it, and to Warrenmck for nominating it which drew attention to the page, and to the comments of this educational discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  As a comment, GNG was never a concern with this article. The topic itself clearly is actually a thing within academic scholarship. The WP:SYNTH concerns cannot be addressed, I believe, without reading the article. Typically reading both the article and the reasons that it's been nominated in an AfD is a helpful step before voting, but I cannot speak to your process. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

This continued argumentation with everyone who disagrees with you is unseemly. It's making the page unnecessarily long. Either your deletion arguments were convincing or they are not. I find them unconvincing and two other editors (so far) also find them unconvincing. It it really necessary to repeat them every time another editor responds??? Skyerise (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Randy Kryn responded to a concern that was not raised (GNG) about an article he didn't read, per his own admission. It's fair to point out that GNG was never part of this discussion. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Then its fair to note that you just acknowledged the topic existing in academia, which invalidates your whole argument. I suggest you save yourself the embarrassment of a WP:SNOWBALL keep by withdrawing your nomination. Skyerise (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I did read much of it, and gave the page a good skim, before assuring to myself that it met GNG and then commenting. It's long, so I did not read every word but intend to. What I see in this is a future feature article. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: OP has just invalidated his own reason for deletion by saying The topic itself clearly is actually a thing within academic scholarship. Skyerise (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  Skyerise, you need to take about a thousand steps back and realize that an AfD isn't a personal attack. If anyone wants to take this note at face value the full context may be found here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  I suggest you take your own advice. Skyerise (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  In short your argument is basically WP:TNT but I don't think the article is so irreparably damaged that this would apply. Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  I do, but I'm 100% open to being wrong, hence the AfD process. And yeah, I really should have put WP:TNT as my reason above. Alas, there's only so many three letter acronyms following WP: a man can remember for instant recall. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Keep There is substantial psychological and psychoanalytic material on the subject both already cited and uncited but available through Wikipedia library (such as Transcendence and Its Shadow: A Depth Psychological Inquiry into Transcendence, the Transcendent Function, and Spiritual Bypassing. By: Tousignant, Maura, Psychological Perspectives, 00332925, Oct-Dec2023, Vol. 66, Issue 4) we don't delete topics with significant academic coverage just because the article is not yet perfect. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Strong Keep: There is an academic usage of the term and the concept is subject to research in fields of culture and religious studies. For example, here we can see an examination of the concept in view of Jewish tradition on Brill: Divine Embodiment in Philo of Alexandria in: Journal for the Study of Judaism Band 49 Ausgabe 2 (2018) VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Strong keep, already many strong arguments made in favor of keep. The article is not WP:SYNTH. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Jesus Is Lord

Jesus Is Lord (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:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep apart from charting there are specific references enabling background and composition sections. In the continuing RfC a number of editors consider that album reviews that include content about a song do count towards WP:GNG of the song which would also be the case here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

God Is

God Is (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:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep there are multiple sources outside of context of the album used in this article referencing the song or Labrinth's contributions, an additional version is noted and it charted in numerous countries. --K. Peake 17:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 08:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Khaldoun Sweis

Khaldoun Sweis (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 does not appear to meet the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC in spite of years of opportunity to do so. It seems kind of a strech for an associate professor to be notable. There are name-drops about who interviewed him, and a list of his publications, but that doesn't confer notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Definitely needs cleanup to remove the promotional material for his self-developed coaching method and his self-published CreateSpace book. Not notable as an academic, but he passes WP:NAUTHOR as the co-editor of Debating Christian Theism, which has received multiple reviews in independent sources, including International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, The Journal of Theological Studies, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Philos, Theological Studies; and co-editor of Christian Apologetics, which has also received multiple independent reviews in the Heythrop Journal and the Southeastern Theological Review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Neutral (Lean Keep) -- Definitely in the scope of "Some people who are clearly notable think that he's notable" based on the co-editorship of the OUP volume, plus one additional high prestige article. This in itself is borderline for WP:PROF -- it seems on the face of it enough for WP:AUTHOR, but these publications are not what that guideline was primarily meant to evaluate. My hunch is what Dclemens1971 was able to find will turn into more and will be a keep, but based on what I quickly found and what's here, I'm neutral. But it's definitely not an easy del. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed, not an easy delete. I may withdraw this nomination, seeing how it pans out. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  "'Some people who are clearly notable think that he's notable' based on the co-editorship of the OUP volume, ..." I don't think that follows at all. J.P. Moreland is the "name" author on the Oxford anthology, the other authors don't have to be notable for Oxford to be willing to publish it. Jahaza (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. he's third editor on the Oxford anthology, doesn't have an essay in the book himself, and the introduction is not a substantial piece of scholarship, it's only a page and a half long. The Zondervan anthology is a little better, but absent evidence of widespread adoption of the book as a textbook, I don't think he meets WP:NACADEMIC. I don't feel that it really meets WP:AUTHOR, he's only a part of the team compiling anthologies, not creating new works in his field. Jahaza (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  Here are three accreditations I got from Dr. Khaldoun Sweis himself. I am positive links can be arranged.

  "Dr. Sweis and I had a chance to work together on a project in Chicago’s South Loop neighborhood. The goal was to engage highly skeptical people in honest intellectual conversations around some of the deepest challenges to the Christian faith. Dr. Sweis spoke on the topic of ‘If there is a God, why is there so much evil.’ The conversation he led was spot on. His style of lecture was both hard hitting and emotionally powerful. He spoke from his heart and that came out in his passion on almost every point. But he also managed to make the highly intellectual and philosophical topics of his discussion accessible to everyone in the room. Beyond his ability to communicate, he was also a blessing to work with from the very beginning. I’m hopeful to work with Dr. Sweis many times in the future."

  -Raef Chenery, South Loop Campus Pastor, Park Community Church

  "Khaldoun Sweis is a solid Christian scholar with integrity and deep commitment to Jesus and His Kingdom. He has taught at a secular college for some time now, and he has remained faithful and learned a lot about how to talk to unbelievers. He is a respected teacher and speaker with passion and enthusiasm for his topic and the care of his audience. I was privileged to co-edit a book with Khaldoun that came out a few years ago with Oxford University Press. I recommend him as a speaker and friend of your ministry.– JP Moreland, Ph.D. JP Moreland Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in La Mirada, California Moreland was selected in 2016 by The Best Schools as one of the 50 most influential living philosophers. He has authored, edited, or contributed papers to ninety-five books, including Does God Exist? (Prometheus), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Debating Christian Theism (Oxford.) He has also published close to 90 articles in journals"

  “It has been a privilege to know Khaldoun Sweis over the years. I am pleased to recommend him as a speaker and scholar who communicates with insight, honesty, and clarity about the reasonableness and relevance of the Christian faith in the marketplace of ideas.”

  Paul Copan

  Paul Copan is a Christian theologian, analytic philosopher, apologist, and author. He is currently a professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University and holds the endowed Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics. AudunNilsenOslo (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  If these testimonials (which look like book blurbs) are published anywhere, then they can be used. Otherwise it's no better than primary sourcing if Sweis is the only source. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  Per their talk page[3], @AudunNilsenOslo is an employee of Khaldoun Sweis. --Jahaza (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  Contrary to your claim about being a third editor, WP:NAUTHOR encompasses book editors: This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if...The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). (Emphasis added.) Co-editing two books that have received multiple independent periodical reviews counts toward WP:NAUTHOR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Dclemens1971, I don't think that's likely to be the intent of that guideline. Editing an academic compilation is very different from the kind of work people tend to think of when they say "editor". It's not like editing, say, a new edition of Chaucer, or publishing a historical text for the first time, or being "so-and-so's editor". I might consider it for WP:NPROF if the edition was something like a Norton Anthology - but that kind of academic is almost certainly already notable for other things (that's why they're editing the Norton). -- asilvering (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  Having worked many years ago in academic publishing (unrelated to this person's area of expertise), I would respectfully disagree; co-editors do a lot of work in selecting, editing and preparing anthologies -- but I understand others may not read NAUTHOR the same way I do here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Anachronist and Jahaza. Does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Shekinah TV

Shekinah TV (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 am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Keep - Keep the article and improve the references. Channel is available in most DTH (except SUN) and most Cable aggregators.
  Anish Viswa 04:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  Responding to the points raised: Availability doesn't satisfy WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage in independent sources (see WP:NEXIST). The suggestion to improve sources falls under WP:HEY; the key is demonstrating such sources actually exist, which the WP:BEFORE search did not confirm. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Harvest TV

Harvest TV (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 am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Keep - Keep the article and improve the references. Channel is available in most DTH (except SUN) and most Cable aggregators.
  Anish Viswa 04:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  Responding to the points raised: Availability doesn't satisfy WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage in independent sources (see WP:NEXIST). The suggestion to improve sources falls under WP:HEY; the key is demonstrating such sources actually exist, which the WP:BEFORE search did not confirm. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Goodness (TV channel)

Goodness (TV channel) (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 am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Keep - Keep the article and improve the references. Channel is available in most DTH and most Cable aggregators.
  Anish Viswa 04:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  Responding to the points raised: Availability doesn't satisfy WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage in independent sources (see WP:NEXIST). The suggestion to improve sources falls under WP:HEY; the key is demonstrating such sources actually exist, which the WP:BEFORE search did not confirm. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

No articles proposed for deletion at this time

Categories for discussion

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

Islam

Habib al-Rahman Kandhalwi

Habib al-Rahman Kandhalwi (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 found no indication in this article that it meets the criteria set out in WP:GNG or WP:Scholar. However, I did come across a video in which another scholar discusses this individual's work, which suggests that the subject may have some notability as a researcher. That said, this alone is not sufficient to establish Wikipedia notability. I propose deletion. I would be happy if someone could provide reliable sources to support the subject's notability and thus prevent deletion. I also found a 15-year-old AfD discussion where participants similarly struggled to find reliable sources.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 22:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 22:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Pakistan, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Harun Izhar

Harun Izhar (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 current article cites a total of nine references, eight of which focus solely on a single incident—his arrest and release. The remaining one is about his father. This is insufficient to meet the criteria of WP:GNG and does not establish the subject's notability as a Wp:Nscholar, writer, or religious figure.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 21:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 21:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Crime. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. ZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 03:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment He was arrested three times. Could be notable under WP:GNG.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Ma'ariful Qur'an

Ma'ariful Qur'an (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article has been tagged for original research, unreliable sources, and unverified content since 2018. Although I have attempted to address these concerns, the article remains poorly sourced and lacks sufficient content to stand as a standalone page. I propose a redirect.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 02:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Islam, and Pakistan. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 02:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the nom, as the page does not have verifiable sources. --Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect as proposed by nom or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect as I don’t see enough here for a stand alone article. Mccapra (talk)

Al-Farooq (book)

Al-Farooq (book) (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 removed some unverified and unsourced content from the page. It was already a stub, and now it's even shorter. Deletion seems to be the most appropriate option.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 01:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 01:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

There are some references on the Uzbek wiki (uz:Al-faruq) that look promising, but I can only access this one. I've added some context. It could be notable; I lean towards keep. I realized that those sources are considered unreliable by the nominator who removed them recently. Would be useful to know why they are unreliable, but I trust your judgment since I can't read them. Reconrabbit 19:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit: I initially added the sources while working on the Bibliography of Shibli Nomani. Although they are reliable, they are not directly relevant to the text, which is why I chose to remove them. However, if you find them useful, you're welcome to incorporate them. There is no shortage of credible sources available online. The primary concern is that, in its current state, this article does not meet the standards required for a standalone entry.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 20:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The linked source from the Journal of Islamic Studies and Humanities dedicates about two pages to this book, which led me to believe it was worthwhile to use it. If it does not meet the standards for an article on a book, it could be redirected back to Shibli Nomani until someone compiles more substantial information. Reconrabbit 20:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect as I don’t see enough here for a stand alone article. Mccapra (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Ramadan in Turkey

Ramadan in Turkey (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 one of a series of articles by the same editor; I'd bundle them if I knew how. All the articles are like this, they are not about Ramadan customs peculiar to one country but are merely descriptions of common customs. The long list of foods (I've edited out the more preposterous bits) are likewise merely lists of commonn foods of the country, such as (in this case) kebaps. TheLongTone (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Islam, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Prob delete - seems to me that the topic likely is notable in the sense that there probably are distinctive Turkish cultural practices during this religious time. But I'm also not convinced that the page, as it is currently framed, addresses that. Maybe someone else could try again later and make a better stab. JMWt (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete and do the same with all the other articles (or at least draftify). Agree with nom and JMWt that, from what I know about Ramadan and Turkish culture and from looking at the sources, much of the content is pretty generic and not necessarily specific to Turkey. The sources are not the highest quality don't really specify what makes Turkish observances unique among countries. Obviously social visits and common dinners are not any different from elsewhere. The author just translated this from Arabic wiki, but it's pretty poor writing to say lentil soup or lahmacun are Ramadan food when Turks eat these every day (if I'm wrong, the article should be clearer). Ramadan#Cultural practices is quite short and should be expanded to cover the instances where there are significant practices that may not be universal, perhaps expanded to a Ramadan by country page or similar that puts differences in context, but not standalone articles. I mean, Ramadan in the United States does have a couple US-specific facts, but then generic crap that there are Tarawih prayers just like everywhere else! Reywas92^Talk 17:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment: This article have been created as part of the Wiki Loves Ramadan Editathon. The articles hav been created in various languages in addition to English. Tuhin (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep The topic is covered in many English-language books, not all of which are accessible through Google Books, but here are a few: How to Be Amazing at Speaking Turkish: Mastering the Heart of Türkiye [4], beginning of Chapter 7; Intellectuals in the Modern Islamic World: Transmission, Transformation, Communication [5] (the index shows that Ramadan in Turkey is covered on page 298, which is not part of the preview); World and Its Peoples Volume 1 [6] (again, the index lists Ramadan in Turkey on page 835, which is not shown in the preview). This book Introduction to Ramadan [7] may not be reliable (it looks self-published) but has info about Ramadan in Turkey which could be used to search for other sources (eg lighting traditional Ottoman lanterns apparently called fenerbahcesi). There are also several articles and chapters - "Celebratıon of Ramadan: The Case of Turkey" [8], "Does Ramadan Affect Happiness? Evidence from Turkey" [9]; "Aspects of Underlying Ramadan Consumption Patterns in Turkey" [10]; "Evaluation of the impact of the month of Ramadan on traffic accidents" [11]; "Can Religiosity be Sensed with Satellite Data? An Assessment of Luminosity during Ramadan in Turkey" [12]; etc. The topic is clearly notable - I don't think the fact that this article could be improved and expanded is a reason to delete it. I note that this article has been translated from the corresponding article in Arabic. Turkish Wikipedia seems not to have a specific article about Ramazan in Türkiye, but the article on Ramazan has some info specific to Turkey. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

*Keep; Ramadan holds significant cultural and religious importance in Turkey, with unique traditions like Mahya, special communal prayers, and festive street celebrations. The article provides valuable insights into the social, cultural, and religious aspects of Ramadan, reflecting the impact on daily life and tourism in Turkey. Deleting this article would remove important information about a key cultural practice in Turkey, and it should be preserved and expanded. Also supported with Reliable Sources and passing WP:GNG. 1947inYamama (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG5536B 00:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:SPINOFF. There is content of encyclopedic value about this topic (i.e. discussion of Ramadan in Turkey within reliable sources, thanks to RebeccaGreen for that research). I imagine the same is true of some other, but not all, countries. The question then becomes, "where do we put this information"? It's notable enough to pass WP:GNG, so it should go somewhere, but if we crammed it all in to the Ramadan article, that would create both WP:UNDUE and WP:SIZE concerns. As such, I think a keep as per WP:SPINOFF is in order. Flip^andFlopped ツ 21:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Al-'Ashr al-Awakher

Al-'Ashr al-Awakher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No sources. No indication of notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Islam. UtherSRG (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

What the article is describing is the Night of Power. Whether this is a legitimate name for it is another question. If it is, redirect, but I don't think it is, so delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I haven't changed my mind. How is this different from the subject we already cover? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - in its original state, the article contained three references, none of which mentioned Al-'Ashr al-Awakher at all. Since nomination at AfD, the creating editor has added a rough translation from the urwiki article, but I am not sure what to make of the references that are now there - they look like primary sources to me, but my knowledge of Islam is quite poor. In any case, although my WP:BEFORE searches turned up references to the last ten nights of Ramadan and that the Night of Power occurs within that period (so the topic is possibly notable), I could find nothing linking the phrase Al-'Ashr al-Awakher with it at all. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - The first version of the article was incomplete, I've improved it now, so I think it should keep. Leo^talk 10:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per leo.Veritasphere (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable but sources can be improved. Mainly primary sources at the moment. Needs secondary sourcing. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more thorough, policy-based input, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - to expand on my previous delete recommendation, I could find no WP:SIGCOV of either Al-'Ashr al-Awakher or last ten nights of Ramadan in secondary sources: there are plenty of passing mentions, but only in the context of the Night of Power or I'tikāf, both of which are already the subject of articles. The current article, a rough translation of mentions in primary religious sources, should not be kept. SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete This seems like a promotional article. It says they are the best for worship and good deeds. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. The topic doesn't appear to be independently notable. Cortador (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ramadan or to Night of Power. Per nom, this article fails WP:GNG, and as such, should not be a standalone entry. All the references appear to be WP:PRIMARY, and I couldn't find any notable sources otherwise.--DesiMoore (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion

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

Gabriel Kanter-Webber

Gabriel Kanter-Webber (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 has been created by the subject in WP:AUTO violation, and does not appear to meet notability criteria under WP:N. All subsequent attempts to improve article with recent news coverage by other accounts has resulted in immediate reversion and somewhat disingenuous edit summaries to cover this. I acknowledge that most of this news coverage has been negative due to subject's terminally online behaviour and one must have regard for WP:BLP, but if this coverage cannot be included then I do not see what this article is for. I added a recent 2024 news story that received coverage in most British Jewish media outlets, and was reverted within six minutes despite the editor not using Wikipedia for anything other than gatekeeping this bio.

I am not convinced that subject is notable, but defer to consensus - if the article is retained then subject should be banned from editing it so a more comprehensive article can naturally develop. Dev920 23:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• this article should be kept. I am not the subject, and I edit a range of articles connected to Brighton and its history and people. For instance I also created the article on Julian Crampton and I can’t be him as well! This article on the rabbi meets the notability rule because it contains multiple sources discussing the rabbi, his work and career. Brightonheritage (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• Weak delete - most of the sources are strictly local. Bearian (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Full Delete: There just is no notability. Wikipedia is not a resume. The subject is just a Rabbi, not a head Rabbi or leader. There is a possibility that local coverage could be found for many of the millions of clergy members, including priests, preachers (ministers), and rabbis worldwide. This does not equate to global notability in a worldwide encyclopedia. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Forgive me but is there a requirement that someone have ‘global notability’ or that only the chief rabbi of a country qualifies for an article? I’ve not seen that rule anywhere. And Surely almost any local politician, say, only has local notability. The question has to be is there coverage of this person in reliable sources, and this person is covered in reliable sources. Brightonheritage (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Jewish Big Sisters

Jewish Big Sisters (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)

Upon searching up the subject, I don't see any reliable sources that are usable for this article. WormEater13 (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. WormEater13 (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Are not the 2 sources cited reliable? The NY Times goes without saying and the Jewish Communal register is an important book-length publication which I'm sure is cited numerous times on Wikipedia. kosboot (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

A listing in a communal register isn't a strong indicator of notability. It's routine coverage from a source that has weak editorial oversight and often includes primary source material. hinnk (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I'm leaning keep as I've found some articles about the organization in newspapers.com: [13], [14], [15]. I'll keep looking but I suspect there's enough to establish WP:GNG. Likely won't have time to fully investigate until next week. Nnev66 (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, though an older article with older sources, The New York Times clearly counts as reliable to establish GNG. This is a clear keep, though just older sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, but replace New York Times source with article URL rather than newspapers dot com image. I found a brief article by JTA dated February 1930 and an entry for the founder in Jewish Women's Archive (dated 2023), with an entire section about subject. Both could be additional sources for article.--FeralOink (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

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. No support for deletion/draftification beyond the nominator. Consensus is that the subject is notable and warrants a standalone page, and concerns about WP:SYNTH can be addressed through normal editorial processes. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Divine embodiment

Divine embodiment (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 appears to be a large WP:SYNTH attempt to draw a thread between specific practices in Western Esotericism and practices which exist in other religions. While there's certainly a rhetorical thread linking them, the specific topics in question either have their own articles (Deity yoga, Jewish mysticism) or straight up are questionably included here. I went through trying to figure out if there's possibly an article here as I have some expertise on only one of the constituent topics, but I think there's way, way too much WP:SYNTH here attempting to link disparate traditions on the basis of the similarity of their practices, rather than pointing to a wider sourced discussion of those topics as synthesized.

Essentially this article seems to be trying to link practices which are not so strongly linked within Religious Studies and I'm uncertain it's possible to write a single article about that without so many caveats on the different interpretations between faiths that it becomes meaningless in the absence of rock-solid scholarly sourcing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Buddhism, Judaism, and Spirituality. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, the methods are explicitly linked and compared in psychological discussions, for example, Friedman, Harris; et al. (2024). "Models of Spiritual and Transpersonal Development". In Miller, Lisa J. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Psychology and Spirituality. Oxford University Press. pp. 149–172. ISBN 978-0-19-090553-8. Skyerise (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  That's a psychology text. The article explicitly is drawing synthesis through religious studies, and while I acknowledge interdisciplinary expertise is useful and definitely not wrong, it seems like quite a house of cards to link multiple disparate religious traditions through in the absence of anything at all from either the field of religious studies or the scholarship of those religions themselves. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  The term is used throughout religious studies literature as well, as evidenced by the titles of many of the sources. The topic of "divine embodiment" exists as a notable scholarly category, and certainly deserves coverage in Wikipedia:

  • Collins, Dawn (2020). "Seeing the Gods: Divine Embodiment through Visualisation in Tantric Buddhist Practice". In Rosen, Aaron; Child, Louise (eds.). Religion and Sight. Equinox Publishing. doi:10.1558/equinox.35753 (inactive 13 April 2025).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of April 2025 (link)
  • Fiorella, K. (2023). "Thinking in a marrow Bone: Embodiment in Vajrayana Buddhism and Psychoanalysis". Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association. 71 (2): 277–309. doi:10.1177/00030651231174237. PMID 37357930.
  • Gray, D. B. (2006). "Mandala of the Self: Embodiment, Practice, and Identity Construction in the Cakrasamvara Tradition". Journal of Religious History. 30 (3): 294–310. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9809.2006.00495.x.
  • Holdrege, B. A. (2015). Bhakti and Embodiment: Fashioning Divine Bodies and Devotional Bodies in Krsna Bhakti. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-66909-8.
  • Orlov, A. A. (2024). Embodiment of Divine Knowledge in Early Judaism. Routledge Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-032-10591-8.
  • Washburn, M. (2012). Embodied Spirituality in a Sacred World. State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-8626-9.

Right, but that's not the same thing as linking these traditions, which is why there's a WP:SYNTH concern. The expression of divine embodiment in Deity yoga, for example, is fundamentally a distinct think from that in Jewish mysticism, to such a degree that even in the article we're discussing it's basically two parallel explanations with minimal overlap. That's the WP:SYNTH issue, here. You seem to be running with "there is a term for this sort of thing" and taking it to the extreme of "Therefore these things are relatable". Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The psychological and spiritual overviews describe them as manifestations of the same psychological views and processes, and each covers most if not all of the traditions listed. Each of the more focuses sources makes comparisons with one or more of the others. Also, the relationship between the psychological and theological aspects of embodiment is discussed in depth in Manning, Russell Re, ed. (2020). Mutual Enrichment Between Psychology and Theology. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-13149-6. The article doesn't assert historical continuity except where that continuity is documented. Your criticism of the article is unfounded, and I expect your threadbare argument will be rejected by those with deeper knowledge of the topic. Skyerise (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, I probably am one of the Wikipedia editors more knowledgeable on this topic. That’s why I’m objecting to the form the article has taken; the existence of a category of practice within scholarship is not the same thing as a statement of the real existence of that category. An article about the academic concept itself may warrant existence, but what’s there now is either more broad collection in disparate information weakly linked by a few authors’ use of a specific term at best and WP:SYNTH at worst. Look at Prayer, for a similar example without the immediate launch into a signal boost for western esotericism. But I think we should let this play out without us creating walls of text. :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I’d like to address some of the concerns raised, particularly regarding the potential WP:SYNTH and the article’s approach to comparing practices across various traditions. The primary goal of the article is to explore phenomenological similarities and shared practices within different spiritual traditions, specifically regarding divine embodiment. The article draws on scholarly sources from psychology, religious studies, and spirituality, which explore how these practices—despite differences in context—lead to similar experiential transformations.

It’s important to clarify that this article does not claim a unified historical or doctrinal lineage for these practices. Instead, it looks at how these traditions approach embodiment and transformation, acknowledging the significant cultural, theological, and historical distinctions that exist. For instance, deity yoga in Tantric Buddhism and theurgy in Neoplatonism are discussed in parallel, not as identical practices, but as different manifestations of a shared psychological goal—the embodiment of divine presence.

The comparison made in the article is grounded in modern religious studies and psychological research that recognize these practices as part of broader categories of spiritual development. Collins (2020) and Fiorella (2023), among others, provide frameworks for understanding how different traditions of embodiment can lead to similar transformational experiences—even if the underlying theological concepts differ significantly. This approach is informed by a growing body of scholarship that seeks to understand common patterns in human spiritual experiences, rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all explanation on them.

In response to the concern about WP:SYNTH, I agree that the distinctions between these traditions should be carefully maintained. The article will be revised to emphasize these differences more clearly and to ensure that the article does not overstate the similarities between the practices. At the same time, the article acknowledges that while these practices may differ in their theological underpinnings, they often serve psychological functions that are remarkably similar.

I would also like to emphasize that this article does not make a case for a universal interpretation of divine embodiment, but rather documents how this concept is approached and interpreted by various academic disciplines across different spiritual traditions. This broader, comparative view is essential for understanding the role of embodiment in spiritual practice, and it’s an important area of scholarly interest within both psychology and religious studies. Skyerise (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. My own views on whether the page is WP:SYNTH aside -- see the talk page where I had a tense conversation with Skyerise on this topic given our prior disagreements -- it's a very real topic and method in Western esotericism, and at most the page should reflect that -- it should not be deleted. On the topic of tantra in particular, there is clear evidence that deity yoga influenced Western esotericism. Two sources on this topic which can enrich the page:

• Hackett, Paul G. (2017-10-23). The Assimilation of Yogic Religions through Pop Culture. Lanham: Lexington Books. ISBN 978-1-4985-5230-1.
• Djurdjevic, G. (2014-05-21). India and the Occult. New York (N.Y.): Springer. ISBN 978-1-137-40499-2.

My own objections were towards treating divine embodiment or the godform as trans-historical, rather than produced by the interaction of ultimately independent traditions meeting in the modern West. This alone is not enough to delete, imo. wound theology◈ 13:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Would it be fair to summarize your stance as “Keep, but complete rewrite”? Because I don’t think I’d fundamentally object to this being an article about Western Esotericism, and yet it seems to be written sort of in a way to legitimize Western Esotericism in a historical religious framework? Basically what I’m trying to understand is if you think the article already here, rather than a completely different one that doesn’t yet exist at this article’s name, is acceptable. At that point draftify may be a better solution? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The article is fine as it is, just a little unbalanced and I've already brought up my grievances with Skyerise, which she was receptive of. There are many categories in the study of esotericism, both East and West, which for better or worse, are rooted in that same syncretism and perennialism. Even the term Esoteric Buddhism, which is pretty standard in academia, was coined by a Theosophist based on, well, racist ideas about how white occultists knew Buddhism better than Asians. So long as the page is explicit about how and why this idea of a perennial divine embodiment came about -- people like Crowley and Blavatsky being orientalists and largely misunderstanding Vajrayana -- then it should be fine. At most, it might need a name change to Godform since "divine embodiment" might be too general. wound theology◈ 14:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Interestingly, my initial contact with this concept didn't come from either Crowley or Blavatsky, but rather Beyer's Cult of Tara, which is much broader than the title implies, being a rather broader coverage described in the subtitle, Magic and Ritual in Tibet. Skyerise (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you about the trans-historical view. My intent has always been to add material about the influences the traditions had upon each other. This is, however, harder to source, so my initial foray into the topic was to delineate the traditions and usages involved and covered by reliable sources, then to start adding the historical developments and interactions where possible. I acknowledge that a more nuanced approach is required to avoid over-generalizing or implying direct historical continuity where there is none. The current structure does aim to present each tradition on its own terms, but I understand that a clearer historical framework is needed to show how these practices might have influenced one another, especially in the context of modern Western esotericism. The sources you mentioned, such as Hackett and Djurdjevic, would certainly provide valuable insights to enrich the article. They will help ground the discussion of divine embodiment within a more historical context and clarify the interaction between Eastern and Western traditions in more specific terms. Thank you for your support. Skyerise (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you need to decide if this is an article about modern Western Esotericism or a historical practice among religions which will necessarily relegate modern Western Esotericism to a minor mention just on WP:UNDUE grounds. It’s not tenable to have an article about a broad pan-religious topic spend equal time on a small (semi-)NRM as it does on Judaism and Buddhism. In your description of your intent here it looks like you’re trying to focus on Western Esotericism regardless of the weighting in sources? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is like two days old and I'm not done working on it. Your animus to Hermeticism in general is noted. Skyerise (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I have no antipathy towards Hermeticism or Western Esotericism. Hell I’m one of Esoterica’s Patreon patrons. That doesn’t mean that it warrants equal mention as every other religious and spiritual tradition, collectively, in an article that isn’t explicitly about western esotericism. If you’re still working on it then draftifying seems like the best solution? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The article has already been rated B-class by an independent rater, so no. Why would I agree to draftify an article based on weak arguments for deletion when the article has already been recognized as superior content? Skyerise (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Look, I’m neither trying to pick a fight with you nor overly criticize your writing. You’re adding sources to the article “for use later” and on the talk page and AfD both have mentioned that the article isn’t finished, which seems like a reason to draftify to me, but we can leave it up to others. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of undeveloped stubs and articles under development. I had and have every right to move an article into main space once it is robust enough to stand on its own, even if it isn't "finished". That's how one gets contributions from other editors and constructive criticism. "Articles for Deletion is not cleanup". Adding sources to further reading is my process - I do it on many articles, most of which I didn't write myself. Your suggestion is ridiculous on its face, we have many articles with globalize tags or which are in other ways substantially incomplete, and we don't delete or draftify them. I invite contributions from other editors - the article is way past start class, and so far, you're the only editor who has a problem with it. I remain confident that the article will be kept. See also WP:IMPATIENT: "The article shouldn't be deleted for its current status only because no one has improved it yet. Such deletion would prevent editors from improving it in the future. Conversely it's not enough to promise to make the article better; editors should explain how to do it. If the editor fails to follow through on the promise, other editors who arrive later can step in and keep improving it. This way, the article's fate is not dependent on one single editor doing the work; Wikipedia is written in a collaborative way." Skyerise (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Let me be very clear: I think the article as is written, is so WP:SYNTH-rich that it shouldn't stand. If you feel there's a substantive article to be had in there, then given the current state of the article I believe draftifying it is the right call. Regardless of what it was assessed as during creation, since then two editors familiar with the material have expressed WP:SYNTH concerns, with each of those two editors falling on a different side of this AfD. I do not believe the article in its current form has surmountable problems and I think it needs a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. I struggle to see your reasoning here for the format of the article as anything other than WP:SYNTH, and I struggle to see how any version of this article could dedicate half its content to one of a multitude of traditions it applies to without an extremely good justification.

The primary goal of the article is to explore phenomenological similarities and shared practices within different spiritual traditions, specifically regarding divine embodiment.

The primary goal of any article should be presenting encyclopaedic information, not an exploratory endeavour to link phenomenon beyond what has been written in the established literature.

I may simply be wrong here in my read of this, and if I am then that's okay. We're all wrong at times, like when you said I had animus to Hermeticism. But I am not trying to tell you "I think this article is a bit messy and should be draftified before it's live", I'm saying I think the article as it is now unintentionally misreads readers into seeing a connection that simply isn't made in the literature in the way it's expressed here, and that this article, in my very possibly wrong opinion, shouldn't be live on Wikipedia until those concerns are addressed. But that is just one opinion and we're already making this unreadably long. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Yet you ignore that the connection is detailed in multiple sources, both in psychological and religious studies, even though I have listed those sources explicitly. And you further misrepresent my position by taking that sentence out of context, so let me make it clearer for you: The primary goal of the article is to explore phenomenological similarities and shared practices within different spiritual traditions, specifically regarding divine embodiment, as covered in the relevant secondary reliable sources. [italicized phrase added]. If you think the discussion is too long, perhaps you should stop trying to one-up me every time I reply. Skyerise (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously, wow, this is a full article which I'll have to read at length, like a good book, at some point soon. Meets GNG goes without saying even though said. Thanks to Skyerise for writing it, and to Warrenmck for nominating it which drew attention to the page, and to the comments of this educational discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  As a comment, GNG was never a concern with this article. The topic itself clearly is actually a thing within academic scholarship. The WP:SYNTH concerns cannot be addressed, I believe, without reading the article. Typically reading both the article and the reasons that it's been nominated in an AfD is a helpful step before voting, but I cannot speak to your process. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

This continued argumentation with everyone who disagrees with you is unseemly. It's making the page unnecessarily long. Either your deletion arguments were convincing or they are not. I find them unconvincing and two other editors (so far) also find them unconvincing. It it really necessary to repeat them every time another editor responds??? Skyerise (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Randy Kryn responded to a concern that was not raised (GNG) about an article he didn't read, per his own admission. It's fair to point out that GNG was never part of this discussion. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Then its fair to note that you just acknowledged the topic existing in academia, which invalidates your whole argument. I suggest you save yourself the embarrassment of a WP:SNOWBALL keep by withdrawing your nomination. Skyerise (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I did read much of it, and gave the page a good skim, before assuring to myself that it met GNG and then commenting. It's long, so I did not read every word but intend to. What I see in this is a future feature article. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: OP has just invalidated his own reason for deletion by saying The topic itself clearly is actually a thing within academic scholarship. Skyerise (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  Skyerise, you need to take about a thousand steps back and realize that an AfD isn't a personal attack. If anyone wants to take this note at face value the full context may be found here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  I suggest you take your own advice. Skyerise (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  In short your argument is basically WP:TNT but I don't think the article is so irreparably damaged that this would apply. Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  I do, but I'm 100% open to being wrong, hence the AfD process. And yeah, I really should have put WP:TNT as my reason above. Alas, there's only so many three letter acronyms following WP: a man can remember for instant recall. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Keep There is substantial psychological and psychoanalytic material on the subject both already cited and uncited but available through Wikipedia library (such as Transcendence and Its Shadow: A Depth Psychological Inquiry into Transcendence, the Transcendent Function, and Spiritual Bypassing. By: Tousignant, Maura, Psychological Perspectives, 00332925, Oct-Dec2023, Vol. 66, Issue 4) we don't delete topics with significant academic coverage just because the article is not yet perfect. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Strong Keep: There is an academic usage of the term and the concept is subject to research in fields of culture and religious studies. For example, here we can see an examination of the concept in view of Jewish tradition on Brill: Divine Embodiment in Philo of Alexandria in: Journal for the Study of Judaism Band 49 Ausgabe 2 (2018) VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Strong keep, already many strong arguments made in favor of keep. The article is not WP:SYNTH. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Shmiras halashon

Shmiras halashon (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 sourcing does not even mention this term. Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Richard Ferrer

Richard Ferrer (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)

Non-notable person. Doesn't meet WP:GNG because none of the sources discuss him as a person, but simply mention his job title and/or are articles writrten by him. The man himself has not received significant coverage. Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. Doesn't meat WP:ANYBIO. Amisom (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Judaism, England, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete could not find any significant discussion about the subject in all of the references. Those passing mentions are not enough to pass for WP:ANYBIO. Mekomo (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jewish News, where he is named as the editor. I can't find much coverage about him - the best sources would appear to be Britain's Jews: Confidence, Maturity, Anxiety [16], which has about 5 pages reporting on an interview with him, which says he is not religious, and the Spiegel International source in the article already, which gives his age at the time. I haven't found many sources which quote him, either (as distinct from publishing his writings) - the book Muslims Don't Matter [17] has a small para quoting one thing he wrote, but that seems to be about all. I don't see any status or achievements that would meet any notability criteria, either. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Sikhism

Samad Khan's expedition against the Sikhs

Samad Khan's expedition against the Sikhs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is no significant coverage for the battle in the sources.

Surinder Singh Johar (2002) only provides a paragraph worth of coverage to the actual conflict. Same thing with Kharak Singh (1996), Harbans Singh (1994), G.S. Chhabra (1960) and Surjit Singh Gandhi (1999). The sources do not consider this conflict as a standalone event or even call it by the name it is created under, they discuss it in the broader context of conflict between Mughals and Sikhs. This topic therefore fails WP:N and WP:GNG. The relevant parts can be covered at Nawab Kapur Singh. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sikhism and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. As with most creations by this editor, this article is taking an excerpt from a broader history and spinning it into a standalone article with no substance. It is also full of verifiability issues. The history of the Mughal-Sikh wars is long and complex, and warrants spinoff articles in some cases, but this isn't one such; all the information here that from good sources can be covered without difficulty in broader articles, such as Nawab Kapur Singh and Zakariya Khan. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Anandpur (1703)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Battle of Anandpur (1703)
• Articles for deletion/Battle of Anandpur (1703) (2nd nomination)

Battle of Anandpur (1703) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is fundamentally no WP:SIGCOV about this battle. The sources that mention it say that it occurred and what its result was, but there's essentially no more information than that. Much of the coverage uncovered at previous AfDs is either unreliable, or relates to different battles of Anandpur, of which there were many, including in the previous and following years. The topic is better covered as two sentences of background or aftermath in those articles. There is nothing to merge or redirect, as the only meaningful content was a copyright violation, and the title isn't a meaningful search term because of the parenthetical. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Sikhism, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, I might argue for some sort of merge per NOPAGE but there's really nothing to merge. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV.

(TL;DR)  The available material is so thin that wikipedia risks creating a chimeric historical event with dubious details in trying to write a supposedly encyclopedic article on the topic, as is seen in the current wikipedia article and the previous AFD discussion.

Details: The two cited sources treat the subject of the wikipedia article as the fourth battle of Anandpur, and the latter source combines discussion of the fourth and the fifth battle (which also was in 1703), devoting less than two sentences on the former (in a 1000+ pages tome). Other sources call it the Third battle of Anandpur, while again covering it cursorily. Yet others combine discussion of the numerous skirmishes around Anandpur in 1703-04 under the rubric of "The second battle of Anandpur" in a single sentence summary. I should note that all these sources are pretty borderline wrt WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Grewal (2019), likely the only WP:HISTRS-compatible source among those listed so far, discusses the battle in 3 sentences without giving it a name and his description of the battle result (... many fighters were killed on both sides. On the following day, no one dared to attack.) contrasts with the "Sikh victory" declared by the wikipedia article. The battle date and strength of forces reported in the wikipedia article are also unsourced and dubious. That's illustrative of the risk we run when we scrape the barrel for material and try to write an article in a tertiary publication that is an order of magnitude longer than the space any reliable secondary source devotes to the topic. Abecedare (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Having checked the sources, I agree with the nominator 's assessment that there is no significant coverage about this battle, the first source only provides a single paragraph of coverage, and the second one refers to both the battles in one page while providing most coverage to the other battle and not this. Azuredivay (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Pathankot Campaign

Pathankot Campaign (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 describes a 1775 clash between Sikh Misls but fails to show its a distinct, notable event beyond skirmishes already covered in articles like Kanhaiya Misl, Bhangi Misl, or Sikh Confederacy. "Pathankot Campaign" isn’t a recognized term in historical scholarship, also WP:RS don’t treat it as a standalone event separate from typical inter-Misl strife. It leans on a narrow set of sources, like Gandhi (1999) and Gupta (1939), lack the mainstream weight or specificity to confirm details. NXcrypto Message 10:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, Pakistan and Punjab. NXcrypto Message 10:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sikhism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of meeting WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The so-called "Pathankot Campaign" is itself made up. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Yet another revenge nomination, [18][19][20] lol. Just take all of my articles for deletion. Not to mention the nominator has used AI to write this frivolous rationale. Like they don't even bother to go through Pathankot Campaign#References. Check these sources: (2 pages), (2 pages). Heraklios 16:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  Haha, this is kinda funny to me, few days back, some dude was all over me for grammar slip-ups, and now this! Anyway, seems like you’re pretty worked up and running low on solid points. I did my WP:BEFORE check before tossing this article up for deletion. Check it yourself: Google Books (nothing relevant), Google Scholar (nothing), normal search (nothing), News articles(empty too). Looks to me like its got zero notability in mainstream sources. NXcrypto Message 20:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  I’ve never even crossed paths with you, so don’t go saying this is some revenge nomination, that's nonsense. NXcrypto Message 20:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  You’re pointing to these Internet Archive links like they’re gold:[21] and [22], but let’s be real, its just Hari Ram Gupta again, and that’s a shaky leg to stand on. Gupta’s stuff, like from 1939/1944 or whenever, isn’t some mainstream heavyweight and doesn’t prove “Pathankot Campaign” is a legit standalone thing. I dug through WP:BEFORE, Google Books, Scholar, news, nothing calls this a distinct event. You wanna keep it? Show me something solid, some mainstream scholar references, not just Gupta’s dusty WP:RAJ work. NXcrypto Message 20:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  It's real bold to talk like this after someone has already accused you of using AI to format the deletion rationale. -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Not only the subject fails GNG but the article is seemingly pushing ethnic POV. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Then shouldn't it just be rewritten if the tone is biased? - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 20:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep; there seems to be some significant and reliable coverage from scholars, historians, etc. The article looks a little biased, and there are some strong words like "enraged", but a rewrite can fix that - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 20:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  You will have to cite the sources you believe have provided enough coverage. I don't see any scholarly sources that have. NXcrypto Message 07:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - Per above. Cannot be termed as anything more than an original research, as such, the subject entirely fails WP:GNG. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War

Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia 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)

There is no conflict such as the "Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War", sources do not support it and provide no significant coverage to a conflict under this name. This article is a part of a series of fringe pseudohistorical articles created for ethno-religious POV pushing. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Obvious hoax article, if ends up on a section on Wikipedia's finest list of hoax articles I wouldn't be surprised. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: Sources are quite clear in establishing the notability of this conflict, the nominator is currently on his spree of nominating my articles for deletion just to take revenge for this SPI:
  • [23]: 3 pages of coverage.
  • [24]: Another 3 pages of coverage.
  • [25]: Same. Heraklios 17:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I can read only snippets of one source that I looked for, but at the very least the people purported to be involved in this conflict existed, and skirmishes are referred to. Unlikely to be a complete hoax from what I can see Reconrabbit 19:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Coverage exists and isn't a hoax. The article is fine. This seems to be part some sort of revenge spree. RachelTensions (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

*Delete sources exist that proves the content is genuine. But the article title is indeed pseudohistory. The available content could be merged into any of the parent articles. Academic sources lacks covering this as an individual war.Borax || (talk to Borax) 14:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlvaKedak (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per An editor from Mars. None of the sources provided by article creator Heraklios establish the authenticity of this conflict, let alone significant coverage. Koshuri ^(グ) 07:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: The subject matter is clearly notable when viewed through a neutral point of view. The only issue seems to be the title of the article, which could be changed later. Please refrain from filing articles for deletion simply to escalate disputes between editors or groups of editors, Wikipedia is not a battleground. AlvaKedak (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - The coverage in the sources is not enough and none of the sources support this neologism made up by the author "Ahluwalia - Ramgarhia war" , in fact sources do not even support that this was a war, sources at best refer to it as skirmishes and do not provide significant coverage to them. Anyway given the author's history of making copyvio, I doubt this article is free of it. The relevant details (not closely paraphrased) can be covered at the articles of relevant personalities. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)