Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Religion|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Religion. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Religion

Religious information by country

AfDs for this article:

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

Article that duplicates various better more updated articles like the Religion by Country ones. Seems like a straight copy of the World Christian Database (2010), CIA World Factbook, a Pew Research Center survey from 2010 and the International Religious Freedom Report (2012). None of it should be merged since most of our other articles either already use these sources or their updated versions. Rolluik (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related AfD discussions. Rolluik (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
People who want information about religion in a particular country will go to the article on the country or go to the Religion in Country article. If they want to compare countries they will go to a page with a sortable list like Christianity by country. Rolluik (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nom's reasons. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 18:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Sikkim

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

Redirect to Religion in Sikkim. There is nothing here to sustain a standalone article. Strip the census table, which already lives at the parent, and what remains is two sentences and a temple name. The notability tag was rightly added by a past reviewer as no source treats "Hinduism in Sikkim" as a distinct subject with significant independent coverage. The sourcing is also poor, the demographic figures are cited to the census2011.co.in mirror rather than the official Census, and the "Indrakil, garden of Indra" line is sourced to a university campus location page, which is not a reliable source for anything. Hinduism being the state's majority faith makes it due weight within Religion in Sikkim, not grounds for a permastub fork. Per WP:NOPAGE, redirect and cover it there. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Buddhism, Hinduism, India, and Sikkim. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The largest religion in a state with around 60% of the population adhering to it, deserves a standalone article per WP:DUE. Besides, we shouldn't be judging the article for its current sourcing (WP:ARTN) since sources WP:NEXIST. Get on a cursory search on GNews and deep search for journals and books, there are enough coverage to warrant a separate page. They just got to be added the article and expand it. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Mizoram

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

I propose merging to Religion in Mizoram because this is rather a short content fork that duplicates material better handled in context, and per WP:NOPAGE the subject (a 2.75% minority of about 30,000, mostly British-era Gorkha and Bengali settlers plus Bru-Reang) is served better as a section there than as a thin standalone. The sourcing will not sustain a separate article: the entire "Culture" section, including the distinctive "Sunday service," book of psalms and coffin-burial claims, rests almost wholly on a single 2013 Hindustan Times feature reused as citation throughout with the rest being one-off news features (EastMojo, The Hindu) rather than the sustained, independent coverage WP:GNG expects, and the demographic anchor is a ^{[dead link]}. Several passages are also synthesis, stitching individual newspaper anecdotes into general statements about "Hindu practices in Mizoram." The verifiable census figures and the genuinely sourced facts (migrant origin, district percentages, the Bru-Reang displacement) can also fold cleanly into Religion in Mizoram; nothing here needs, or has the independent sourcing to justify, its own page. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, Hinduism, India, and Mizoram. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mizoram#Hinduism as an ATD-R. A separate page isn't required for this per WP:UNDUE and WP:PAGEDECIDE. It can be comfortably accommodated under the subsection of a larger article, with no prejudice against a standalone page in the future if more coverage erupts. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. FaviFake (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Meghalaya

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

Redirect or just Merge the demographic tables to Religion in Meghalaya and delete the rest. The census figures are a content fork, and the surrounding article is a POV fork resting on two policy failures. First, the "History" and "Tradition" sections recast the indigenous Khasi-Pnar faith Ka Niamtre and its festivals as "tribalised" Hinduism with "links to larger Vedic Civilization," stating a contested Sanskritisation reading as fact against WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL; this is synthesis, and it is internally self-refuting, since one of its own citations has a Khasi leader explicitly saying they are not Hindus even where practices resemble each other. The "Percentage in Groups" block then assigns precise religious splits to whole ethnic communities ("60% Hindu and 40% Muslim") with no source, which is bare original research, and the article carries multiple unverifiable and ^{[citation needed]} claims alongside mutually contradictory population tables (the 1971 share is given as both 17.19% and 18.49%). Second, the "Persecution" section is a coatrack of non-neutral claims that Hindus are "targeted, attacked and murdered by Christian tribals," sourced to partisan and self-published outlets (democracynewslive.com, dailyo.in, the "Cutting the Chai" blog) that fail WP:RS and are wholly inadequate for contentious allegations against a living community. The topic may be notable, but the verifiable content is a census table; the interpretive and "persecution" material is an essay and should not survive the merge or redirect. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, Hinduism, India, and Meghalaya. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I went through the article and the nominator's rationale. And what I'll say that, it's definitely not beyond redemption and there's no need to WP:TNT it. Whatever OR/SYNTH issues seem to be there, they can be comfortably addressed through editing. And the WP:V issues can be tagged or removed, at an editor's prudence. After all, AfD ain't clean-up. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The "AfD ain't cleanup" principle applies to ordinary quality issues, but Wikipedia:BLPGROUP and Wikipedia:NPOV create a higher bar when content makes unverified, contentious allegations against living communities. The "persecution" section sources accusations of targeted violence to blogs and partisan outlets that fail WP:RS, and that cannot be fixed by tagging alone; keeping it in any form risks ongoing harm. The verifiable content is purely demographic, so a merge to Religion in Meghalaya preserves what is salvageable without hosting the harmful material. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Arunachal Pradesh

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

I propose merging the census tables to Religion in Arunachal Pradesh and drop the rest. The verifiable demographic content here is a content fork of an existing article, and everything built on top of it is a POV fork: the "History," "Pilgrimage," "Practices," "Idu Mishmi" and "Local Ramayana" sections reframe the state's indigenous animist traditions, the largest single bloc in the census at 26.2% filed under "Other Religions and Persuasions," as "early Hindu influence" or latent Hinduism, which states a contested Sanskritisation thesis as fact in violation of WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL. It is also anachronistic original research and synthesis, folding the customs of communities not historically Hindu (the Chutia and various Tani and Mishmi groups) into a continuous Hindu presence and relabelling the Khamti Tai-Buddhist "Lik Cao-Lamang" as a "Ramayana version," a claim no cited source makes as a whole. The sourcing cannot carry this weight under WP:RS and WP:V: the Ramayana material rests on the ideologically aligned NewsBharati, one journal citation is a placeholder literally reading "(Example)" with an inactive DOI, and the remainder are primary PIB and tourism pages, all consistent with the WP:LLM tag the article already carries. I also do not see the topic is notable enough, and most sources that talk about this are in predatory outlets or travel magazines which cannot be used to cover the history/origins of a religion.The topic may be notable, but in its current form this is an essay arguing a thesis, so the demographics should merge and the interpretive sections should not survive it. still it’s best to nuke it and have someone create an article as a fresh start. It would be worse to preserve this section in the history, as it borders on fringe theories. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Hinduism, India, and Arunachal Pradesh. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I went through the article, its sources and the nominator's rationale. And what I can say is that, it's absolutely not beyond redemption and there's no need to WP:TNT it. Whatever OR/SYNTH issues seem to be there, they can be comfortably addressed through editing. After all, AfD ain't clean-up. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that the concern here goes beyond ordinary OR or SYNTH, reframing the religious identity of living indigenous communities by folding their traditions into Hinduism without their consent implicates Wikipedia:BLPGROUP and WP:NPOV in ways that editing around the edges does not resolve, since the framing is the article's entire premise. A merge of the census tables to Religion in Arunachal Pradesh retains the verifiable demographic content, while a fresh start, as I suggested, avoids preserving a thesis-driven structure that would constrain future editors. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support : Nearly 70% of citations are from census 2011, and JNU Journal not accessible . Thus i support Merger per WP:OR, WP:V & WP:GNG.Mr.Lazy Guy (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional religions

AfDs for this article:

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

I propose merging to Fictional religion because, at present, this list fails as a WP:CONTENTFORK of Fictional religion, as currently it fails WP:NOPAGE as a redudant fork. The Fictional religion article at present covers the topic in extensive detail, so there is no need for this secondary list that composes nearly entirely of redirects and articles mostly already mentioned at the parent. At present, the only linked articles not included in the parent are Church of Humanity, Covenant (Halo), Church of the Papal Mainframe, Earthseed, and Sith, and these can likely be merged into the parent article as mentions. However, otherwise, there is no need for this separate article to exist, as these two articles are better covered together as one whole topic rather than apart. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Religion, and Lists. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Confusing nomination - NOPAGE can't be "failed" and it's completely unclear how it's relevant here. Having a separate prose article and a list article for that topic is extremely common; not a content fork. This list passes WP:NLIST and is a helpful navigational list. Katzrockso (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:NOPAGE: "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page" and "Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page" for example sum up my points in that regard. There is no need for separation when there is so little that wouldn't be better understood by being part of the parent article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:52, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you're suggesting a selective merge, then the informational value of the encyclopedic content in the current list would be lost. If you're suggesting a wholesale merge, it would burden the target article with a list that takes up too much space. Katzrockso (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I primarily propose a selective merge, which shouldn't lost any encyclopedia value given all the list's linked articles would be listed at the parent anyway, and thus nothing would be lost but the formatting. That said, a wholesale merge would not take up much space either given the current Fictional religion article is only 25k bytes, while the list is a mere 3k. A 28k byte article is nowhere near unreasonable, and the list being ported over directly is nowhere near unreasonable length wise in the article itself given how few entries are listed. Neither of these are unreasonable and keep the content to one article, which is more useful for readers than having to bounce between two to get the same information on one topic. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although it needs improvement with regard to sources, it serves a function as a index to information. We are not limited to just a prose article or a standalone list article--both are allowed are are useful. Rublamb (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I think these two articles could be merged, mostly echoing Rublamb I do not think this is beneficial nor supported by WP:CONTENTFORK. The list has a navigational purpose, and in this regard is both complementary to the prose article, and also better suited as an alphabetized bullet-point list is easier to screen than a pragraph of prose. Having a list and a prose article side by side is certainly completely normal on Wikipedia, just compare the whole WP:LISTN reasoning. WP:NOPAGE can indeed be considered here, but does not in itself point to one solution or the other. I think two separate pages are better for said reasons. Daranios (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the list were shorter, then a merge would be reasonable. Except it is not a short list, and merging the two would make for a large, unwieldy page. Because separate content and list pages are so common, I see no need to make an exception here. TechBear (he/him) | Talk | Contributions 16:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fictional religion is a well written article on the main subject while List of fictional religions has its own potential. A short summary for every single item will be a good task for anyone seeking promotion of this article. Chronos.Zx (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zemi Figures from Vere, Jamaica

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

Merge Zemi Figures from Vere, Jamaica to Zemi.

Nominator's rationale: None of the sources establish notability separate from the general subject of Zemi figures. Source 1 doesn't mention zemis, source 2 is broken, source 3 seems to be a general treatment of pre-Columbian Jamaica with a passing mention, source 4 is a non-digital source on ancient art of the Americas and seems to be a passing mention, source 5 doesn't mention Jamaica, source 6 is a book about tobacco with a passing mention. The two further readings are a book about Puerto Rico (not Jamaica) and a source with an unlisted title. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I was going to go with "improve citations," but the article was created 2013-12-14, and 12.5 years was more than ample time to establish good references that support notability. TechBear (he/him) | Talk | Contributions 16:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia ever worked like that, it stopped doing so years ago. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 May 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Mythology, Religion, England, and Jamaica. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably - I have updated the BM reference link, which took all of 20 seconds. That lists a long set of publications & exhibitions (not to mention a French poem on one figure), so the assertion that "None of the sources establish notability separate from the general subject of Zemi figures" is lazy nonsense. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They are in the permanent collection of the British Museum [1], and should be retained in the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I notice, btw, that these figures aren't even mentioned or linked at Zemi - that should certainly happen. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion, Johnbod and Netherzone. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mordechai Nessyahu

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

I cannot find any sources that are clearly reliable about the subject. Hewiki's article is not any better in terms of sourcing.

I removed one citation to a blog, which does not help notability. Floating around online there are various blogs that promote his ideology, which due to their unreliable nature, being user generated blogs, does not help.

The remaining citation is to a self-published SSRN article. This SSRN article was published in the Journal of Astronist Studies, a journal edited and published by the author Brandon Taylorian. Taylorian, aka Cometan, is the founder of the (self-described) "space religion" Astronism, which was influenced by Nessyahu; the journal is for studying his own space religion. He is the sole editor of the journal, and so this, being an article written by him, is self-published. In all fairness, he does have a PhD and is a research fellow at a reputable university so his publications aren't totally unreliable though contextually he does not have "subject matter expert" status that would allow for EXPERTSPS; even if he does this would be still only one source that counts for GNG.

I found a few passing mentions of a "Mordechai Nessyahu" in news articles of the 1950s and 1960s, none beyond a passing mention. I think they are relating to him but I am not sure, and none cover Cosmodeism. I did a search in Hebrew and found about the same level of coverage, no sigcov.

I cannot find any reliable, independent, significant sources, so he fails the WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't decided on this AfD yet, but in looking into it I found that one of the cited news sources from Hebrew wikipedia is more than a passing mention, it's an article profiling him in the context of Einstein writing about him, also gives an account of the publication of his book/political obstacles due to his leaving of Mapam.[2] Significantly more than a passing mention in that one. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That one won't show up for me, I get an error, so I'll take your word for it. Also, what publication is it from? Still, not enough for GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is a photocopy of archive of a page from Maariv, September 30, 1953, contains no-indepth coverage. --Altenmann >talk 19:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll disagree with you on no in-depth coverage, I think it more than qualifies. I think sources about this person probably do exist to establish notability. However, since I'm not volunteering to do the hard work of finding and incorporating them and no one else seems to be, I'll refrain from opposing your deletes.

Interestingly, Nessyahu's wife seems to have been a storied Mossad agent who participated in Adolf Eichmann's capture and the Yossele Schumacher affair. Maybe one day I'll make her a page. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuelshraga I think he's interesting, so honestly I don't want the page to be deleted if that is avoidable, but I have no clue where to look for sources, my usual venues came up totally empty. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the evaluation of the nom. I myself placed the "notability" tag after some due diligence, planning to AfD it myself in a month or two if no improvmt. --Altenmann >talk 15:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By WP:NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. In the source guideline, WP:NOTABILITY, this is in bold. gidonb (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know; I and I faied to find significant converage, only bits and pieces. --Altenmann >talk 20:53, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes the GNG and NAUTHOR with ease. Extensive coverage as a politician, author, and often combined, throughout the 1960s, 1970, and 1980s in Hebrew: [3]~~[4]~~[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. There is a healthy amount of reporting here and analysis what his next steps could be, and also a lot reviews and analysis of books, articles, pamflets that he wrote. In Yiddish: [16]. This is still very selective and only newspapers. In Google Books also no lack of coverage, including bundled journals and magazines. gidonb (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see any of these references (they all throw a cloudflare error for me). Are these actually sigcov? because I found a lot of passing mentions and no sigcov, so I want to know if they are passing mentions or not. I get no significant results for his name on Hebrew in Google Books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV and there is more where that cam from. This is a historical Israeli figure. BLP does not apply and the national newspaper archive was not consulted. Far reaching conclusions without that. gidonb (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notability rules apply to dead people all the same. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They apply, though a bit less hysterical, and Nessyahu would have passed with flying colors even if he were alive. He isn't. As has been proven, this nomination is a baseless. Intsead of a retraction, I see vague talkback. gidonb (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see any sources that are sigcov. They do not appear for me because I get a cloudflare error when attempting to view whatever website that is. I can see Google Books, but I am seeing no sigcov on that searching in Hebrew. According to Altenmann above, the sources are not sigcov. You say they are sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's the National Library of Israel. National newspaper that covered him extensively. Altenmann wrote his opinion before the WP:HEY. gidonb (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your refbombing is worthless and waste of Wikipedian's time. I took trouble to open a random one, and found that it only says "M. Nesyahu said that the proposal submitted for approval is not just a compromise between different methods, but is a balanced method. For there is no justification for extremism regarding a national or relative system." - and that's it. I suspect you do not have a clear understanding what WP:SIGCOV means. --Altenmann >talk 05:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I invite everyone to open all the sources! :-) gidonb (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What newspaper? Is it multiple newspapers? Because the National Library of Israel is not, itself, a newspaper. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 13 times various national newspapers and 1 time HaIr Tel Aviv. It's not difficult to find even more SIGCOV! I included a book chapter from Google Books and another source (Maariv through the National Library of Israel) directly in the article so the WP:SIGCOV sources are now everywhere. gidonb (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Above, I gave you an example of a useless one in your refs. Nw you added one more factoid: "He exchanged several letters on the subject with Albert Einstein." - this is even more telling example: an asociation with a notable person does not increase subject's notability, it is not "SIGCOV", and contributes nothing useful to the article.--Altenmann >talk 15:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I put that back. It was removed by you. This reference supports it. A book chapter is SIGCOV. This Hewiki source is not bad either. The entire case to delete an extensively reviewed author runs against our P&G. gidonb (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you did not understand what I wrote. --Altenmann >talk 15:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To you. There's nothing wrong with the correspondence between Mordechai Nessyahu and Albert Einstein. It's not why Nessyahu (or Einstein) became famous. Just another activity they have engaged in. gidonb (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> Let me rephrase since you still fail to understand. This is a discussion at Afd, meaning we discuss notability. I am sure Nessiyahu was talking to Netaniahu and Ben Gurion and Golda Meir and who else famous. The fact is that all this does not affect notability of Nessyahu. --Altenmann >talk 01:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's marginal in his career, yet was covered and can be included. His career was important regardless. There is absolutely no case of inhereted. This is a historical author who passes both AUTHOR and the GNG. gidonb (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aspersion

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

ignoring the other definitions of the word (where this is apparently the most obsolete one), there just aren't enough sources to help this one meet gng, at a current total of... zero. as it turns out, religious texts and encyclopedias aren't very useful for that

research of my own has mostly led to results referring to the personal attack definition, and to a third definition not covered in wikt:aspersion, that being "tossing liquids around for literally any other reason" (i.e. water sprinklers sprinkling water, or water sprinklers sprinkling pesticide), but none that would work for defining the word itself here or contribute to gng for the concept

thus, i'm more inclined to soft redirect to wiktionary (again, wikt:aspersion) or delete to encourage creation of another article when someone finds usable sources for any definition, with mild opposition to having this as a non-soft redirect consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 12:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 12:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The practice is also called "asperging" and that might be a helpful alternative term in source searches. M kuhner (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
this variation was just weird. results were more... uh... "esoteric" than the others, referring to acts that can be described with this term being done by curses (asperging their yummy curse juice i guess), eyeballs (the context was more sexually depraved than gross, please asperge my eyeballs with bleach), writers (asperging their integrity), and summoning circles (asperging creatures). to be fair, at least they were more instances of the term in the "christians making things wet" context, but none that actually defined the term, didn't only have it as the word they used to describe the action, or were reliable, and there still weren't many consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 16:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From firsthand experience, "asperging" is what Neopagans call ritual water-sprinkling--but that's no evidence that it needs a Wikipedia article. In that context it's a very minor ritual detail and I wouldn't expect any substantive discussion. I found it on "Weird Pagan Words: An Annotated List" for example, which is just what it sounds like. Dictionary definition territory. The only thing that might be encyclopediac is coverage of the debate about validity of baptism, but for that, Baptism would seem a lot more appropriate. M kuhner (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Redirect to Baptism? M kuhner (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
not really, that one's pretty different. submerging someone in moisture is different from tossing it at them, or tossing it at objects, tossing liquids around in general, or that damn eye thing (why'd they have to specify virginity!?), or casting aspersions (which seems to be the primary topic, but i can't tell by how much) consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 11:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

David Huntsinger

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

Multiple claims to notability, but the current sources are unreliable (IMDB, Answers.com), directory listings, or primary sources. WP:BEFORE found only a couple passing mentions of his work and zero biographical information. The Andy Griffith album only credits him as an associate producer, meaning Huntsinger's involvement in the album was very limited and not something he himself got the Grammy for. The song "Holy Spirit, Thou Art Welcome" is in several hymnals, but I found no sigcov of the song itself either so it does not seem to be a notable work per our standards. I was unable to find any reviews of his work, biographical information, or anything else that gets him over the line of WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Religion, and Tennessee. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:09, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 14:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Easter in Nigeria

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

Currently there is a lot of unsupported material on the page that is not supported by references. If that was removed it would be a stub which simply stated that Easter is a festival celebrated by millions of Christians in Nigeria. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Nigeria. JMWt (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The topic appears by every indication to be notable, but the AI issue worries me. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also adovated to keep the Easter in Cyprus article for the same reasons--religious traditions vary from country to country and I think it's important to have records of each as a way of documenting culture around the world. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is a requirement to properly reference every claim made in a page and everything left uncited can be removed. Maybe there is something that could we written on the topic using reliable sources, I don't know. But this isn't it. JMWt (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, written like a high school assignment. Geschichte (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as it needs a lot of work. While a brief skim of this (weak) source doesn't seem to show much difference re: Easter celebrations compared to general Easter practices (beyond a few cultural dishes), I don't know enough about the subject matter to opine whether it meets WP:GNG. A quick search of Google Scholar brings up several articles about the impact of festivals-in-general as a catalyst for peace, and Christians do make up approximately half of Nigerians, but the current state of the article is unacceptable. I would fix it but I don't know much about the region, sources are pretty scarce, and I try to stay away from religious topics as I had enough of that in school. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 00:35, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This article has the potential to be very impactful and will continue to be relevant as the strong human capital from Nigeria continues other continents. However, the article is not up to my understanding of what the standards are for Wikipedia articles. It lacks in detail, substance, and sourcing, so improvements must be made.

Temple of the Vampire

AfDs for this article:

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

Has been deleted before and as far as I can tell nothing much has changed. The most reliable sources used in the article are mostly talking about how the group maybe doesn't really exist. Keyworth describes it as little more than a money-making scam. (p.366). The article is also pure LLM as far as I can tell. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Suspected AI-generated articles. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If there is sigcov on it, then it is notable, whether the group is actually a membership organization or a scam or not. That an organization is good or bad or legitimate or illegitimate is of no relevance to notability. LLM issues if present may warrant a deletion but just because the group isn't a "real religion" doesn't mean it should or shouldn't have an article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And the last deletion was in 2006, when notability was based on vibes, and not any guideline. From a search, the subject is 100% notable, but there are signs of LLM involvement, so I am sympathetic to a deletion from that angle. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given Katzrockso's edits. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This Taylor&Francis source seems legitimate, as well as both book sources. Yes, it might be a scam or a hoax, but Wikipedia has articles on scams and hoaxes, as long as they are widely reported. As for AI, I can spot a few obvious AI tells, but I'm not sure the whole thing was fully AI-generated. It looks more like an AI copyedit or translation. Somepinkdude (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The fact that it's a scam makes it more notable--unfortunately though I just can't find the sources. I found that Taylor and Francis article linked above--but can one scholarly source be enough to keep the page? I'm not sure. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Agnieszka653 It has an entry in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, sigcov in The Occult World, the Laycock book, at least, as well as lots of other coverage. I have verified at least that most of the sources in this article (except the ones that predate the group, and Williams) do discuss them.

It is firmly notable, yes. My issue is the LLM stuff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Stubifying it could solve that. Katzrockso (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I stubified the article and am going to verify/reword the first two sentences next. Katzrockso (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've stubified the article and verified the remaining content (had to remove a couple words) against the Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions source. The subject is notable, as the sources PARAKANYAA notes show. The entry in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions is 434 words, for note. Katzrockso (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 03:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the issues have been addressed by stubification, and sufficient evidence has been given to demonstrate notability.

Religion Proposed deletions

Religion Templates

Atheism

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Buddhism

Hinduism in Sikkim

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

Redirect to Religion in Sikkim. There is nothing here to sustain a standalone article. Strip the census table, which already lives at the parent, and what remains is two sentences and a temple name. The notability tag was rightly added by a past reviewer as no source treats "Hinduism in Sikkim" as a distinct subject with significant independent coverage. The sourcing is also poor, the demographic figures are cited to the census2011.co.in mirror rather than the official Census, and the "Indrakil, garden of Indra" line is sourced to a university campus location page, which is not a reliable source for anything. Hinduism being the state's majority faith makes it due weight within Religion in Sikkim, not grounds for a permastub fork. Per WP:NOPAGE, redirect and cover it there. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Buddhism, Hinduism, India, and Sikkim. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The largest religion in a state with around 60% of the population adhering to it, deserves a standalone article per WP:DUE. Besides, we shouldn't be judging the article for its current sourcing (WP:ARTN) since sources WP:NEXIST. Get on a cursory search on GNews and deep search for journals and books, there are enough coverage to warrant a separate page. They just got to be added the article and expand it. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Miscellaneous

Christianity

Hinduism in Mizoram

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

I propose merging to Religion in Mizoram because this is rather a short content fork that duplicates material better handled in context, and per WP:NOPAGE the subject (a 2.75% minority of about 30,000, mostly British-era Gorkha and Bengali settlers plus Bru-Reang) is served better as a section there than as a thin standalone. The sourcing will not sustain a separate article: the entire "Culture" section, including the distinctive "Sunday service," book of psalms and coffin-burial claims, rests almost wholly on a single 2013 Hindustan Times feature reused as citation throughout with the rest being one-off news features (EastMojo, The Hindu) rather than the sustained, independent coverage WP:GNG expects, and the demographic anchor is a ^{[dead link]}. Several passages are also synthesis, stitching individual newspaper anecdotes into general statements about "Hindu practices in Mizoram." The verifiable census figures and the genuinely sourced facts (migrant origin, district percentages, the Bru-Reang displacement) can also fold cleanly into Religion in Mizoram; nothing here needs, or has the independent sourcing to justify, its own page. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, Hinduism, India, and Mizoram. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mizoram#Hinduism as an ATD-R. A separate page isn't required for this per WP:UNDUE and WP:PAGEDECIDE. It can be comfortably accommodated under the subsection of a larger article, with no prejudice against a standalone page in the future if more coverage erupts. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. FaviFake (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Meghalaya

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

Redirect or just Merge the demographic tables to Religion in Meghalaya and delete the rest. The census figures are a content fork, and the surrounding article is a POV fork resting on two policy failures. First, the "History" and "Tradition" sections recast the indigenous Khasi-Pnar faith Ka Niamtre and its festivals as "tribalised" Hinduism with "links to larger Vedic Civilization," stating a contested Sanskritisation reading as fact against WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL; this is synthesis, and it is internally self-refuting, since one of its own citations has a Khasi leader explicitly saying they are not Hindus even where practices resemble each other. The "Percentage in Groups" block then assigns precise religious splits to whole ethnic communities ("60% Hindu and 40% Muslim") with no source, which is bare original research, and the article carries multiple unverifiable and ^{[citation needed]} claims alongside mutually contradictory population tables (the 1971 share is given as both 17.19% and 18.49%). Second, the "Persecution" section is a coatrack of non-neutral claims that Hindus are "targeted, attacked and murdered by Christian tribals," sourced to partisan and self-published outlets (democracynewslive.com, dailyo.in, the "Cutting the Chai" blog) that fail WP:RS and are wholly inadequate for contentious allegations against a living community. The topic may be notable, but the verifiable content is a census table; the interpretive and "persecution" material is an essay and should not survive the merge or redirect. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, Hinduism, India, and Meghalaya. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I went through the article and the nominator's rationale. And what I'll say that, it's definitely not beyond redemption and there's no need to WP:TNT it. Whatever OR/SYNTH issues seem to be there, they can be comfortably addressed through editing. And the WP:V issues can be tagged or removed, at an editor's prudence. After all, AfD ain't clean-up. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The "AfD ain't cleanup" principle applies to ordinary quality issues, but Wikipedia:BLPGROUP and Wikipedia:NPOV create a higher bar when content makes unverified, contentious allegations against living communities. The "persecution" section sources accusations of targeted violence to blogs and partisan outlets that fail WP:RS, and that cannot be fixed by tagging alone; keeping it in any form risks ongoing harm. The verifiable content is purely demographic, so a merge to Religion in Meghalaya preserves what is salvageable without hosting the harmful material. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Holy See–United States rift

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

Although covered by a wide variety of reliable sources, this article is unencyclopedic and unnecessary. As the frenetic news coverage recedes into the rearview, it's becoming clear that the standalone article violates WP:NOTNEWS and the WP:10YEARTEST - do we really need an entire article on this back-and-forth? See also WP:NOTTRUMP.

By combining reports of a January meeting and the April back-and-forth comments from Trump and the pope to create a single "rift", we may also be violating WP:SYNTH. What's covered here can be adequately covered (at a more appropriate level of summarization) elsewhere: at Catholicism in the Trump administrations, Pope Leo XIV, Donald Trump, and Reactions to the 2026 Iran war. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is a very similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) - furious, intense coverage from the news media resulting in a lengthy, overdetailed article, for a topic which in retrospect is more than adequately covered by a few sentences at Catherine, Princess of Wales#Health. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Christianity, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Holy See–United States relations. This appears to be WP:RECENTISM and media circus which by 30 May has subsided in the news. Brandmeister ^talk 21:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Trim the bloat and then merge to Holy See–United States relations. That's the point of having the relations article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Holy See–United States relations. Lova Falk (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Vatican City-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! This is the first AfD in a new delsort! –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly surprised no one has ever tried to delete a Vatican City-related article before. Or at least that no one's created a delsort for it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Holy See–United States relations: This does not warrant a standalone page per WP:NOTNEWS. It's also WP:TRUMPCRUFT and afflicted by WP:RECENTISM. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Wulstan School

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

Doesn't seems to meet WP:NSCHOOL. The only news that I could find is about the school being closed in 2007. - Ivan530 (Talk) 13:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and England. - Ivan530 (Talk) 13:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Christianity. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 13:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not WP:GNG. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 15:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep according to this here it could be notable for its architecture. Was it a listed building? Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A search of Newspapers.com provides plenty of evidence of WP:SIGCOV; like almost all secondary schools in Anglophone countries, there is sufficient qualifying coverage to pass WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Catholic Church in Belize

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

I propose merging to Catholic Church in Belize because the latter is a stub that has little chance to expand since most of the material is here. (The target article even has a hatnote that says the "main article" is this one.) Clarityfiend (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Christianity, and Belize. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nomination. TechBear (he/him) | Talk | Contributions 16:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Mccapra (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reason to have a separate article. NigbobSlavepants (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as the main topic article is a small stub that needs the expansion this merge would provide, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the "main" article currently has very little use to our readers, but once the merge has happened then there is a good chance that the main article will develop as well. Policy reason: WP:MERGECON. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nuevo Tiempo

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since May 2026; none of the sources are independent. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Latin America. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looking at the previous AFD for this, I don't see that a single editor voting to keep presented any source demonstrating notability. In my own searches when looking up affiliates to this Seventh Day broadcaster I couldn't find anything which demonstrated that WP:NORG was met. Please ping me if sourcing is found which can meet NCORP and I will evaluate. TarnishedPath^talk 12:06, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the first nomination in 2018 ended in withdrawal because of the addition of those ultimately-substandard sources; it apparently was completely unsourced before then. This is probably another demonstration of how lax our inclusion standards for TV and radio topics still were just eight years ago (and a remnant of the more-broadly-lax standards of 2006). No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:48, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Seventh-day_Adventist_Church#Media: No standalone notability here, but it would be appropriate to include this content in the parent topic, which has a section specifically on SDA church media. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

John Dale (minister)

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

Reason BleachPuffin (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC) Article does not seem to me to meet the BLP notability policy. This has been discussed on talk page Talk:John_Dale_(minister). Article previously proposed for deletion in 2007 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Dale[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E might be applicable as article seems to mainly relate to one event in 2000 which itself does not seem to be notable. BleachPuffin (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely does not meet notability guidelines. This article is about a local minister who cannot be said to have an influence beyond his parish. I do find mentions in local newspapers but they are along the lines of weddings with him officiating. The most interesting aspects are the arguments between those wanting to keep the local area "dry" (= no alcohol to be sold) and the students petitioning for alcohol sales. But again these are only in local papers. The emphasis in the article on his sermons is not encyclopedic in any way. Lamona (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is framed around a controversy that is extremely minor in terms of notability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Goodness gracious, what a mess of original research. How was this allowed to last this long in this form? I see no evidence of passing WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost half of the article, 11 paragraphs, are unsourced, including whole sections. If they were taken out, all that would be left are a series of quotes. This is no good for a BLP. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Doman

AfDs for this article:

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

Little significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Refs in the article are all dead links. Blackballnz (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: note that the first nomination from 2011 ended as "no consensus" at a time of lower inclusion standards than today (in a topic area–BLPs–that are supposed to have relatively high standards). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find much WP:RS coverage of the subject that was independent. Best I could find was an interview and coverage on "Catholic Mom.com". Fails WP:GNG Yojo98 (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sadly concur that the sources here are not the in-depth coverage in reliable sources needed to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A brief book review [17], [18] and here [19] Oaktree b (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Probably enough to show a pass at AUTHOR with the reviews above from various sources. Oaktree b (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per the sources identified above by Oaktree b, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability under WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR (can't find any independent reviews of her books). To deal with the reviews surfaced above, this is a review of her Snow White book but the second link (TWL link for registered users) is a single paragraph mention of the book in a broader article, not a full review. This is a review of her Catholic Philosopher Chick book. NAUTHOR requires multiple reviews each of multiple works or of a body of work and that's not in evidence here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, can you add the sources you found to the article in context? Bearian (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Léocadie Lushombo

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

Appears to fail WP:NPROF. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, putting together the coverage in the article along with sources in the corresponding French article, subject meets GNG and NACADEMIC nahle.ghini (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she spoke at the presentation of Magnifica Humanitas and is a lay member of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, equivalent to a Regulatory Commission in the United States. Plenty of significant coverage exists. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aspersion

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

ignoring the other definitions of the word (where this is apparently the most obsolete one), there just aren't enough sources to help this one meet gng, at a current total of... zero. as it turns out, religious texts and encyclopedias aren't very useful for that

research of my own has mostly led to results referring to the personal attack definition, and to a third definition not covered in wikt:aspersion, that being "tossing liquids around for literally any other reason" (i.e. water sprinklers sprinkling water, or water sprinklers sprinkling pesticide), but none that would work for defining the word itself here or contribute to gng for the concept

thus, i'm more inclined to soft redirect to wiktionary (again, wikt:aspersion) or delete to encourage creation of another article when someone finds usable sources for any definition, with mild opposition to having this as a non-soft redirect consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 12:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 12:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The practice is also called "asperging" and that might be a helpful alternative term in source searches. M kuhner (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
this variation was just weird. results were more... uh... "esoteric" than the others, referring to acts that can be described with this term being done by curses (asperging their yummy curse juice i guess), eyeballs (the context was more sexually depraved than gross, please asperge my eyeballs with bleach), writers (asperging their integrity), and summoning circles (asperging creatures). to be fair, at least they were more instances of the term in the "christians making things wet" context, but none that actually defined the term, didn't only have it as the word they used to describe the action, or were reliable, and there still weren't many consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 16:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From firsthand experience, "asperging" is what Neopagans call ritual water-sprinkling--but that's no evidence that it needs a Wikipedia article. In that context it's a very minor ritual detail and I wouldn't expect any substantive discussion. I found it on "Weird Pagan Words: An Annotated List" for example, which is just what it sounds like. Dictionary definition territory. The only thing that might be encyclopediac is coverage of the debate about validity of baptism, but for that, Baptism would seem a lot more appropriate. M kuhner (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Redirect to Baptism? M kuhner (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
not really, that one's pretty different. submerging someone in moisture is different from tossing it at them, or tossing it at objects, tossing liquids around in general, or that damn eye thing (why'd they have to specify virginity!?), or casting aspersions (which seems to be the primary topic, but i can't tell by how much) consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 11:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Manse

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

I propose merging to Clergy house because this article is essentially written as a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article about a clear topic, per WP:NOTDICT. I would further move the "son of the manse" content to Preacher's kid. Daask (talk) 07:33, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, oppose merge. The WP:NOTDICT concern is valid for the article's current state, but the remedy is expansion, not merging. A manse is not synonymous with a clergy house, vicarages and rectories are clergy houses but are not manses; the term carries specific denominational associations (Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist) and distinct property customs (the Church of Scotland's naming policy for sold manses is a concrete example of this). Merging to Clergy house would collapse a meaningful distinction. The "sons of the manse" material is similarly specific: it is a culturally significant concept in Scottish life tied to the Presbyterian ministry in particular, not to clergy generally, and merging it to Preacher's kid would lose that precision. The article needs expansion, the etymology, the denominational distinctions, the cultural significance in Scotland, and notable examples (Gordon Brown, Eric Liddell, John Logie Baird, David Tennant) together constitute encyclopedic content well beyond a dictionary entry. Short ≠ mergeable, per WP:SIZE. Sparks19923 (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:44, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sparks19923. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 10:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On the fence but landing with "keep" because of the arguments above. Arguably this topic could be suitably covered in Clergy house but I see a case for maintaining this as a standalone article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Anglican School

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

This article about a private school is mostly sourced to school directories and lists of routine school information, apart from a decent source about the school building. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found sources to add. I don't think it meets WP:NSCHOOL. Suggesting redirect to the locality, White Rock, Queensland (Cairns Region), where it is mentioned and sourced. Note for searchers: it is sometimes referred to as Trinity Anglican College. There is a deletion discussion on the article's Talk page from 2004, with a range of views. Tacyarg (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Australia. Tacyarg (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:30, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – It's been poorly sourced for 15 years. Not every school needs its own article & this can be part of the locality article.Blackballnz (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: BEFORE must have been fairly cursory since there are lots of examples of WP:SIGCOV out there (as is typical for secondary schools in the Anglosphere), including negative news of controversy. See the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, Architecture.au, the Cairns Post ( [20], [21], [22], [23]), ABC, etc. Definitely a WP:GNG pass for this school. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rheno-Flemish mysticism

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

Note: This merge proposal was originally opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Rheno-Flemish mysticism § Merge

– FaviFake (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This article duplicates German mysticism. They should be merged. Srnec (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

German mysticism is a narrower category. This article also includes mystics of the Low Countries, especially Flemish, who received the German (Rhineland or German Dominican mysticism) often not naïvely but critically, and with reference to sources preceding Meister Eckhart as well. If we had to, we could merge them, but I would instead add additional sub-articles on the Mysticism of the Low Countries or other sub-schools (there are several). Scholarship has not settled on one overarching label for all of them, hence the overlap. Spelare108 (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I have no objection to the title of the article being "Rheno-Flemish mysticism" but there should be one overarching article. I don't think there is a distinct German school. Srnec (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Christianity, Belgium, Germany, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: I never nominated anything for deletion. This is such a stupid process. Srnec (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul's Matriculation Higher Secondary School

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

Fails in GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. BhikhariInformer (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, India, and Tamil Nadu. BhikhariInformer (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it requires WP:CITENEED and fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 23:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel makandiwa

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

Previous deletions, WP:NOTADVERT, WP:GAMENAME, Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. 𝓖𝓲𝓻𝓭𝓲➃➄ ✍️ (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Zimbabwe. 𝓖𝓲𝓻𝓭𝓲➃➄ ✍️ (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious advertising and/or promotional language (Makandiwa is a prominent and controversial figure in Zimbabwean public life, His ministry has drawn both a large following); it appears the creator may have tried to get around the protection placed by an admin on Emmanuel Makandiwa with a capital M. That to me indicates they are aware that the subject is not likely to be notable but published an article about them anyway. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

== Contesting deletion of Emmanuel Makandiwa ==

I am contesting the proposed deletion of this article on the following grounds:

=== 1. Notability ===
Emmanuel Makandiwa clearly satisfies WP:GNG. He has received significant, sustained coverage in multiple independent reliable sources over more than a decade:
- BBC News (June 2020) covered Cook Off's Netflix acquisition and referenced
Makandiwa's UFIC in the broader context of Zimbabwe's church-based media.
- Al Jazeera has reported on UFIC and Makandiwa in the context of Zimbabwe's
religious landscape.
- The Herald (Zimbabwe's newspaper of record) has published dozens of
independent news articles covering UFIC, Christ TV, NAMA, and Makandiwa's public statements over more than ten years.
- NewsDay and The Standard (Zimbabwe) have independently covered his
ministry, controversies, and public influence since at least 2012.
- New African magazine listed him among 100 Most Influential Africans (2012).
- Music In Africa covered the NAMA Legends Awards (2021).
This is well above the threshold required by WP:GNG, which requires only that a subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

=== 2. Promotional language ===

The phrases flagged ("prominent and controversial figure," "large following") have been removed in this revision. The article now uses strictly neutral, factual language throughout, with all claims cited to independent sources. I acknowledge the previous version contained language that did not meet WP:NPOV and have corrected this.

=== 3. Capitalisation issue ===

The previous deletion of "Emmanuel makandiwa" (lowercase m) was for promotional content. This article title uses the correct capitalisation "Emmanuel Makandiwa" and contains substantially different, neutrally written content. Creating a correctly titled article about a notable subject is not an attempt to circumvent an administrator's decision — it is a correction of a prior formatting error.

I request that this deletion nomination be reviewed and withdrawn. I am happy to make further edits to address any specific concerns.

~~~~ Mcmagaisa (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use LLMs to speak for you in discussions. We want to hear what you have to say, not what ChatGPT says. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 13:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no indication this individual meets our guidelines for notability for biographies. Aneirinn (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the author of this article I think Emmanuel Makandiwa is worth keeping and Emmanuel Makandiwa has received significant independent coverage in many reliable sources satisfying WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV:

The Herald (Zimbabwe's newspaper of record) has covered Makandiwa independently across multiple news articles since at least 2012, including: a biographical profile (https://www.herald.co.zw/just-who-is-emmanuel-makandiwa/), a lawsuit report (https://www.herald.co.zw/makandiwa-wants-65m-lawsuit-dismissed/), a UFIC church opening report (https://www.herald.co.zw/ufic-mega-church-opens/), and several others. NewsDay Zimbabwe reported on Emmanuel Makandiwa being described by then-Tourism and Hospitality Minister Walter Mzembi as constituting Zimbabwe's "tourist attractions" — a public ministerial statement: https://www.newsday.co.zw/2013/01/makandiwa-angel-defiant New African Magazine — a pan-African publication reported independently profiled Makandiwa in its 100 Most Influential Africans list under the Religion category: https://newafricanmagazine.com/3380/ Religion in Zimbabwe (relzim.org) has reported an independent profile tracking his ministry since 2012: https://relzim.org/resources/religious-leaders-zimbabwe/prophet-makandiwa/

promotional language previously flagged has been removed. All claims in the current version are cited to independent sources. The previous 2018 deletion was of a different, lowercase title happened by mistake I wanted it to be uppcase but not sure what happened for it to have lowercase. I would want it to be name Emmanuel Makandiwa. This is a neutral rewrite. Mcmagaisa (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would prefer if someone who knows more about Zimbabwe media could comment on this. Is the Herald (linked above by the article creator) a reliable source? Same for the other websites.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 14:55, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Herald is the leading or the oldest media house in Zimbabwe ~2026-32392-35 (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For me the source given above as "public ministerial statement" gives a server error and the New African magazine source gives page not found. Of 6 proposed sources in that message, 2 are dead links. This leads me to be concerned about possible LLM use. M kuhner (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I had used old URL formats on the links and I have updated them they were giving 404 and some where being blocked by firewall but they are not working properly you can check Mcmagaisa (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly promotional and not WP:GNG. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 15:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Vulgate

AfDs for this article:

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

This new version of the article was voted as Keep during the last AfD discussion.

However, 5 years later I think this new and improved version is not worth keeping, as it is textbook WP:NOTDICTIONARY and is simply a compilation of WP:PASSING mentions of the expression.

Therefore, I suggest deletion. Veverve (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Bible, and Christianity. Veverve (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on its current form which is only going to confuse readers. This is a real term with a real history, but if this is the best we can do, then we'd be better off deleting the article. Trumpetrep (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to replacing Greek Vulgate with a redirect, but the question is, a redirect to what? As we discussed last time this article was up for deletion, Septuagint, Textus Receptus, and Nestle Aland are not really acceptable. Last time I checked, the edition of the Bible used in the Greek Orthodox liturgy does not have an article. It should have an article, and Greek Vulgate should redirect to it. Rwflammang (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly not a DICDEF. Nor do I see what's confusing about it. Provides a useful service to readers who encounter this term in the wild. Srnec (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 05:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Easter in Nigeria

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

Currently there is a lot of unsupported material on the page that is not supported by references. If that was removed it would be a stub which simply stated that Easter is a festival celebrated by millions of Christians in Nigeria. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Nigeria. JMWt (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The topic appears by every indication to be notable, but the AI issue worries me. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also adovated to keep the Easter in Cyprus article for the same reasons--religious traditions vary from country to country and I think it's important to have records of each as a way of documenting culture around the world. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is a requirement to properly reference every claim made in a page and everything left uncited can be removed. Maybe there is something that could we written on the topic using reliable sources, I don't know. But this isn't it. JMWt (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, written like a high school assignment. Geschichte (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as it needs a lot of work. While a brief skim of this (weak) source doesn't seem to show much difference re: Easter celebrations compared to general Easter practices (beyond a few cultural dishes), I don't know enough about the subject matter to opine whether it meets WP:GNG. A quick search of Google Scholar brings up several articles about the impact of festivals-in-general as a catalyst for peace, and Christians do make up approximately half of Nigerians, but the current state of the article is unacceptable. I would fix it but I don't know much about the region, sources are pretty scarce, and I try to stay away from religious topics as I had enough of that in school. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 00:35, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This article has the potential to be very impactful and will continue to be relevant as the strong human capital from Nigeria continues other continents. However, the article is not up to my understanding of what the standards are for Wikipedia articles. It lacks in detail, substance, and sourcing, so improvements must be made.

Quench (band)

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

The subject does not meet the notability criteria. It's fairly clearly written by one of the band members. There are very few sources that mention them, and those that do are low quality. The band was not particularly well known or successful - very niche British Christian rock band. Proposed for deletion in 2008. When googling the name of the band, apart from this article, the results primarily include other bands called Quench. NNFL (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Christianity. NNFL (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Trumpetrep (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep from the article the existing references include reviews and coverage from Crossrhythms and a review from Louderthanthemusic which are both christian music reliable sources as shown at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is both a keep and a delete vote, so I will relist he discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 23:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Does not appear to meet WP:NBAND and overly relies on one source. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306. Satisfies GNG. Other coverage includes Jo Duckles, "A thirst for rock", The Door, December 2008, No 198, p 20 [The Diocese of Oxford Reporter]. James500 (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is clearly written by band member Mark Hamilton, clear conflict of interest. Seems to be a page written to garner publicity rather than a genuinely notable artist.

~2026-32726-02 (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a comment from a 2 edit account, both edits on this AfD. It's far from clear to anyone unless you and the nominator know him in real life. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WeShare Health

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

This is a a hot pile of promotional nonsense with no actual notability. WeShare (a car rental, apparently) has some coverage but there is nothing beyond run of the mill garbage and press releases about this company. TURKEYDICAE🦃 20:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Christianity, and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as the page is loaded with promotional writing, can be salvaged if rewritten because it has somewhat WP:SIGCOV. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rescind my nomination, what sources meet the signature coverage? TURKEYDICAE🦃 21:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fiddled with this article in hopes that it could be salvaged, but I don't think it can be. A couple of things: First, I don't understand the difference between WeShare and Unite Health Share Ministries, but the latter is the lead in some sources. Second, the Stevie Award is one of those "pay to win" awards where it looks like everyone who pays is a winner. Third, the Stevie Award site has zero for either of those names. Note that there is a page for Health care sharing ministry. I added the last paragraph of WeShare about being fined in Washington to the Criticism section of that article. That's probably the only notable thing about it. (It could use a better source, which I will try to find.) Lamona (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sources on the page at the time of writing do not mention WeShare Health, not even the new one. Delete this. SenshiSun (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Turns up only company-issued PR. The page reads as straightforward promotional material (WP:NOTPROMO). No credible alternative-to-deletion target. Onatic (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Health of Pope John Paul II

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

I propose merging to Pope John Paul II#Health because the page is barely sourced, and any passage or sentence that is currently supported by a source can be easily incorporated into the main article and the article on his death and funeral (for the part titled "Final days"). Keivan.f^Talk 03:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, and Christianity. Keivan.f^Talk 03:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, there are numerous sources available and can easily be found with the most basic WP:BEFORE to sustain this article. There are many press articles about the Pope's health prior to his death and there was sustained coverage on the topic after his passing with some recent mentions in 2025, two decades after his death. Lack of sources not actionable rational to merge it into the Pope John Paul II. Santa Saana (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of sources does not automatically establish notability for a topic. This is something that can be covered easily in the articles on him and his death. We don't branch pages off unnecessarily. Keivan.f^Talk 13:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And besides, articles can be merged for any reason to merge at WP:MERGEREASON, even if notable. FaviFake (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the article is elaborated enough--Noel baran (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Elaboration itself is not enough. I can tag all the sentences within that page with a "citation needed" tag. And this page was not created recently, so if anybody wanted to improve it they would have done so within the timespan of 21 years. Keivan.f^Talk 14:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pope John Paul II#Health as an ATD-M, as suggested by the nominator. The question here is less about notability and more about WP:OVERLAP. It can be very well accomodated in the parent page under the health section; a separate page is redundant per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOPAGE. BhikhariInformer (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now for size reasons, but open to revisit per WP:NOPAGE if the target article is reworked to be more concise, especially that godawful criticism section. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can take size into consideration when half the article is unsourced. Anything not supported by a citation should be tossed. The remaining info on his health can be merged into the main article and the info on his final days can be merged into the article on his death and funeral. Keivan.f^Talk 14:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II and Death and funeral of Pope John Paul II. The main John Paul II article is too long as it is (I've tried to play my part in helping reduce it to manageable size) but we also don't need to multiply every trivial issue into a new article. M.A.Spinn (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II and Death and funeral of Pope John Paul II per M.A.Spinn and the main article's size as mentionned above nahle.ghini (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there were decades of stories about his health in reliable sources, and the main article is as bloated as was Pope John "The Conclave isn't a beauty contest" XXIII. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
decades of stories about his health That is the case for pretty much every head of state. And as I have stated multiple times already, not all of the content in this article is ‘mergeable’, because it is unsourced or under cited and has been so for 21 years. So there is no chance of bloating to begin with. Keivan.f^Talk 17:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 16:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II and Death and funeral of Pope John Paul II. Per Keivan.f, very little of it is actually mergeable; the rest can safely be discarded. Scolaire (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nearly all of the first two paragraphs (comparing his fitness with previous popes) is already in Pope John Paul II#Health. The only section other than the attempted assassination and his death, the "Later years" section, has a lot of anecdotal stuff about his memory, sourced to John Cornwell (the only book source), a sensationalist writer and former seminarian with an axe to grind. Cornwell is not among the 363 refs in John Paul's article. Scolaire (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Sourced relevant material to Attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II and Death and funeral of Pope John Paul II per Nom, and just dump the rest. The lead introduces unsourced material not found in the body. Some unsourced content ("anecdotal stuff about his memory"), like in the ending of the second paragraph "Later years" section, "Some of those who met him late in his life said that although physically he was in poor shape, mentally he remained fully alert", should not be in any article. Stating there may be sources somewhere out there in the universe is seldom a good argument when notability is questioned. Proof is referred to as a Hey. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Egan (Catholic priest)

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

Not notable nor is there valid sources Kivi36 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Kivi36 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of in depth third party coverage. Mccapra (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Kivi36 (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doing a Google search I found nothing about him, the name Patrick Egan is a very common name, I came across stories about a Patrick Egan in the United States thou. Catfurball (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Kivi36 (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Patrick Egan" may be a common name, but combining it with "Clonard" yields useful results, including significant coverage in a book. St Anselm (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assertion of sources is not the same of sources. please provide what was found for evaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per StAnselm. Spleodrach (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Read Spartzaz comment. Assertion of sources is not the same of sources. please provide what was found for evaluation. Kivi36 (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there is no evidence you carried out WP:BEFORE. And yes, I added a source to the article. St Anselm (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. StAnselm now provides one source in the article: McCann, Michael (2019). Burnt Out: How 'the Troubles' Began. Mercier Press. p. 140. Retrieved 5 May 2026.. However, this book is used to reference an assertion not about the article subject, but about an event he was involved in. It is not clear from StAnselm's comment above how much, if anything, this source says about the article subject, and the linked Google preview is inaccessible. Since we have not been provided with sources that cover the article subject in depth, I concur that there is insufficient sourcing for notability. Sandstein 15:44, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The delete arguments are persuasive. Relisting feels like a potential waste of time. However, there's just enough assertion regarding sources that a relist seems less likely to result in DRV for this one, and that would be a poorer use of time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least until the book Burnt Out can be checked to see whether the evidence it provides really is as limited as Sandstein assumes. Notability is about the existence of sources not how extensively they have been incorporated into the article. It is not necessary for it to be available online.

If on the other hand the problem is WP:1E then the solution is to rename the article to refer to that incident and remove information irrelevant to that. An event repeatedly claimed to have sparked the Troubles is surely notable. Taghdtaighde (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This feels like a rare case where extra input is required and the new keep is so conditional that it doesn't feel like a resolution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

~~Matthew Nakkar (via WP:PROD on 20 September 2025)~~
~~Mar Sargis Yousip (via WP:PROD on 20 September 2025)~~
~~Mar Iskhaq Yosip (via WP:PROD on 20 September 2025)~~

Categories for discussion

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

Miscellaneous

Hinduism

Hinduism in Sikkim

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

Redirect to Religion in Sikkim. There is nothing here to sustain a standalone article. Strip the census table, which already lives at the parent, and what remains is two sentences and a temple name. The notability tag was rightly added by a past reviewer as no source treats "Hinduism in Sikkim" as a distinct subject with significant independent coverage. The sourcing is also poor, the demographic figures are cited to the census2011.co.in mirror rather than the official Census, and the "Indrakil, garden of Indra" line is sourced to a university campus location page, which is not a reliable source for anything. Hinduism being the state's majority faith makes it due weight within Religion in Sikkim, not grounds for a permastub fork. Per WP:NOPAGE, redirect and cover it there. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Buddhism, Hinduism, India, and Sikkim. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The largest religion in a state with around 60% of the population adhering to it, deserves a standalone article per WP:DUE. Besides, we shouldn't be judging the article for its current sourcing (WP:ARTN) since sources WP:NEXIST. Get on a cursory search on GNews and deep search for journals and books, there are enough coverage to warrant a separate page. They just got to be added the article and expand it. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Mizoram

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

I propose merging to Religion in Mizoram because this is rather a short content fork that duplicates material better handled in context, and per WP:NOPAGE the subject (a 2.75% minority of about 30,000, mostly British-era Gorkha and Bengali settlers plus Bru-Reang) is served better as a section there than as a thin standalone. The sourcing will not sustain a separate article: the entire "Culture" section, including the distinctive "Sunday service," book of psalms and coffin-burial claims, rests almost wholly on a single 2013 Hindustan Times feature reused as citation throughout with the rest being one-off news features (EastMojo, The Hindu) rather than the sustained, independent coverage WP:GNG expects, and the demographic anchor is a ^{[dead link]}. Several passages are also synthesis, stitching individual newspaper anecdotes into general statements about "Hindu practices in Mizoram." The verifiable census figures and the genuinely sourced facts (migrant origin, district percentages, the Bru-Reang displacement) can also fold cleanly into Religion in Mizoram; nothing here needs, or has the independent sourcing to justify, its own page. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, Hinduism, India, and Mizoram. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mizoram#Hinduism as an ATD-R. A separate page isn't required for this per WP:UNDUE and WP:PAGEDECIDE. It can be comfortably accommodated under the subsection of a larger article, with no prejudice against a standalone page in the future if more coverage erupts. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. FaviFake (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Meghalaya

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

Redirect or just Merge the demographic tables to Religion in Meghalaya and delete the rest. The census figures are a content fork, and the surrounding article is a POV fork resting on two policy failures. First, the "History" and "Tradition" sections recast the indigenous Khasi-Pnar faith Ka Niamtre and its festivals as "tribalised" Hinduism with "links to larger Vedic Civilization," stating a contested Sanskritisation reading as fact against WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL; this is synthesis, and it is internally self-refuting, since one of its own citations has a Khasi leader explicitly saying they are not Hindus even where practices resemble each other. The "Percentage in Groups" block then assigns precise religious splits to whole ethnic communities ("60% Hindu and 40% Muslim") with no source, which is bare original research, and the article carries multiple unverifiable and ^{[citation needed]} claims alongside mutually contradictory population tables (the 1971 share is given as both 17.19% and 18.49%). Second, the "Persecution" section is a coatrack of non-neutral claims that Hindus are "targeted, attacked and murdered by Christian tribals," sourced to partisan and self-published outlets (democracynewslive.com, dailyo.in, the "Cutting the Chai" blog) that fail WP:RS and are wholly inadequate for contentious allegations against a living community. The topic may be notable, but the verifiable content is a census table; the interpretive and "persecution" material is an essay and should not survive the merge or redirect. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, Hinduism, India, and Meghalaya. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I went through the article and the nominator's rationale. And what I'll say that, it's definitely not beyond redemption and there's no need to WP:TNT it. Whatever OR/SYNTH issues seem to be there, they can be comfortably addressed through editing. And the WP:V issues can be tagged or removed, at an editor's prudence. After all, AfD ain't clean-up. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The "AfD ain't cleanup" principle applies to ordinary quality issues, but Wikipedia:BLPGROUP and Wikipedia:NPOV create a higher bar when content makes unverified, contentious allegations against living communities. The "persecution" section sources accusations of targeted violence to blogs and partisan outlets that fail WP:RS, and that cannot be fixed by tagging alone; keeping it in any form risks ongoing harm. The verifiable content is purely demographic, so a merge to Religion in Meghalaya preserves what is salvageable without hosting the harmful material. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Arunachal Pradesh

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

I propose merging the census tables to Religion in Arunachal Pradesh and drop the rest. The verifiable demographic content here is a content fork of an existing article, and everything built on top of it is a POV fork: the "History," "Pilgrimage," "Practices," "Idu Mishmi" and "Local Ramayana" sections reframe the state's indigenous animist traditions, the largest single bloc in the census at 26.2% filed under "Other Religions and Persuasions," as "early Hindu influence" or latent Hinduism, which states a contested Sanskritisation thesis as fact in violation of WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL. It is also anachronistic original research and synthesis, folding the customs of communities not historically Hindu (the Chutia and various Tani and Mishmi groups) into a continuous Hindu presence and relabelling the Khamti Tai-Buddhist "Lik Cao-Lamang" as a "Ramayana version," a claim no cited source makes as a whole. The sourcing cannot carry this weight under WP:RS and WP:V: the Ramayana material rests on the ideologically aligned NewsBharati, one journal citation is a placeholder literally reading "(Example)" with an inactive DOI, and the remainder are primary PIB and tourism pages, all consistent with the WP:LLM tag the article already carries. I also do not see the topic is notable enough, and most sources that talk about this are in predatory outlets or travel magazines which cannot be used to cover the history/origins of a religion.The topic may be notable, but in its current form this is an essay arguing a thesis, so the demographics should merge and the interpretive sections should not survive it. still it’s best to nuke it and have someone create an article as a fresh start. It would be worse to preserve this section in the history, as it borders on fringe theories. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Hinduism, India, and Arunachal Pradesh. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I went through the article, its sources and the nominator's rationale. And what I can say is that, it's absolutely not beyond redemption and there's no need to WP:TNT it. Whatever OR/SYNTH issues seem to be there, they can be comfortably addressed through editing. After all, AfD ain't clean-up. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that the concern here goes beyond ordinary OR or SYNTH, reframing the religious identity of living indigenous communities by folding their traditions into Hinduism without their consent implicates Wikipedia:BLPGROUP and WP:NPOV in ways that editing around the edges does not resolve, since the framing is the article's entire premise. A merge of the census tables to Religion in Arunachal Pradesh retains the verifiable demographic content, while a fresh start, as I suggested, avoids preserving a thesis-driven structure that would constrain future editors. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support : Nearly 70% of citations are from census 2011, and JNU Journal not accessible . Thus i support Merger per WP:OR, WP:V & WP:GNG.Mr.Lazy Guy (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thalayapooru Sree Bhagavathi Temple

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

Cannot find any reliable sources from either Malayalam or English. The existing sources are either unreliable or having less coverage. Fails GNG Thilsebatti (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources; only one weak source remains after cleanup). Fails WP:VERIFY (large unsourced paragraph on Udambara/Karnavar, plus unreliable sources: blog, Facebook, Justdial). Violates WP:NOR (unpublished oral tradition presented as fact). With no path to notability, deletion is appropriate.

VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 18:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Under what criteria does this qualify for Speedy Deletion? If there is one, could you specify please? Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Nagaland

AfDs for this article:

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

The article shows no evidence of notability for the topic and is solely WP:OR. It is clear there are Hindus in Nagaland, but this article does not talk much about them and the sources do not make any mention of the topic as a whole. The history section is all original research, as it discusses the Kachari people, who are currently Hindus, but weren't during the events described, having undergone Sanskritisation during the 19th century. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Nagaland. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than deletion, I would suggest an WP:ATD approach. The topic itself—Hindu minorities in Nagaland—is covered in broader demographic and regional studies, so the content may be better handled through improvement or restructuring. Weichan123 (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Weichan123 that this article can be written with "broader demographic and regional studies" but are there any? Nevertheless, there has been constant editing on this article from the right-wing perspective without reliable sources or misinterpreting the sources to claim a stronger Hindu narrative. I tried to rectify it once and changed it into the "legend" section. I agree with @Boynamedsue that the history section is Wikipedia:OR which "discusses the Kachari people, who are currently Hindus, but weren't during the events described." They are also unreliable sources. Two of them are the same: one article written in a predatory journal, and another reproduced in a reliable newspaper.

Also, this article was moved to draft just a few weeks ago and brought back without adequate improvements. Astra Travasso (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, my search for sources has not found much. Certainly nothing that couldn't be dealt with (and is dealt with) in a sentence or two on the Nagaland entry. I didn't want to comment on the political side, but yes, it does seem to be an article in service of a political narrative.

Procedurally, the deletion was in part because the draft already existed so discussion is fair. However, no evidence of notability was presented at the previous discussion.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reliably sourced that upwards of 100,000 Hindus are there. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This answer has no basis in policy. Existence does not guarantee an article, there must be significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources, and the article must not be original research.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per recreation of recently deleted article via previous AfD. --SatnaamIN (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Religion in Nagaland Mr.Lazy Guy (talk)
Keep The article needs improvement but doesn't need to be deleted, as similar pages like Christianity in Chhattisgarh, Buddhism in Arunachal Pradesh, Christianity in Karnataka exists without much proper citations or deep research

Weichan123 (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You arer right but above articles doesn't pass WP:GNG. It required a significant coverage to be have a indipendent wikipedia article.

Their content can be added on other page like Religion in Karnataka. Mr.Lazy Guy (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Religion in Nagaland per nom and WP:NOPAGE. Zalaraz (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP instead of deleting and consider WP:ATD-E for the article. It has notability however requires better sources.Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The article has flaws but need not be deleted. It needs improvement. Weichan123 (talk)

02:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge to Religion in Nagaland. Dont see a need for seperate article. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or selective merge to Religion in Nagaland. This article has significant misinformation problems that make it unsuitable in its current form which should not at all be kept. Reference 2 is from arfjournals.com, an unrecognised publisher with no editorial oversight, yet it is used to assert exact radiocarbon dates and push Kachari occupation "possibly" before the 1st century CE, a WP:FRINGE claim unsupported by any WP:RS-compliant source. The Hidimba genealogy section presents what references 5 and 6 explicitly describe as a 19th-century political legend constructed by Dimasa chiefs as straightforward historical fact, directly misrepresenting those sources. The Sanjeevani claim cites a Hindustan Times travel piece and a Mint lifestyle article, neither of which are appropriate for religious-historical claims. This is a significant WP:NPOV concern bordering on misinformation by framing. Also to add to this specifically The Sanjeevani/Mount Pauna claim citing Hindustan Times 2008 and Mint 2022 is a local folk belief presented without sufficient context and framed as a part of Hinduism which again is borderline promotion of fringe theories to promote a specific world view. The census demographics and temple list could be selectively merged into Religion in Nagaland. The history and legend sections should not be preserved in any form without complete resourcing. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Religion in Nagaland Junosang^{leave a message} 05:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ The article has issues regarding its content authenticity, like Sanjeevani claim from Hindustan Times and Mint, but they are not citation sources that are blacklisted by Wikipedia. Instead my suggestion is to rephrase content rather than deleting the whole article. Weichan123 (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia we follow a consensus not a vote, do not spam keep votes with one single account @Weichan123 Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Miscellaneous

Hinduism Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Islam

Karim City College

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG, and my BEFORE does not bring me anything good. There is no indication as to why this college is notable. Post-PROD contributions didn't either bring anything substantial. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 13:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 13:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Jharkhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not WP:GNG. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 15:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete, Karim City College is one of the oldest colleges in the city. It is well-known Muslim minority college in the city, as well as in the state. There is a long history behind the college's trust. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

but this has nothing to do with notability. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 13:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jannathul Uloom Arabic College

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

I propose merging Jannathul Uloom Arabic College to Jami'a Nooriyya Arabic College because the article does not establish independent notability and mainly contains routine institutional details. As it is affiliated with Jami'a Nooriyya, any reliably sourced content can be summarized there. EduExplorer47 (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Islam, India, and Kerala. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 03:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jami'a Nooriyya Arabic College per nom. The article is all routine detail and I can't find WP:SIGCOV of the college itself in independent sources; the citations support an alumnus rather than the institution, so it fails WP:NORG standalone. Onatic (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shab-e-Barat

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

I propose merging to Mid-Sha'ban. Same thing with a different name, much like other Islamic festivals which are known by different names but which we don't duplicate. Gotitbro (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Islam, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Central Asia, Middle East, Iran, Iraq, and India. Gotitbro (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
support per nom. Mehedi Abedin 06:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
support The articles describe the same date (15 Sha'ban) and the same theological core (a night of forgiveness), though I believe the difference lies in how it is interpreted by different cultures. A single, comprehensive article can present the unified origins while contrasting any sectarian or cultural differences.Tashmetu (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Umais 🗣 05:46, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual Author Allah Maureen Uche

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

Fails WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search finds no reliable, secondary coverage. All sources in the article are by the subject herself (her books, as seen on Amazon). jolielover♥talk 04:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Islam, and Illinois. jolielover♥talk 04:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The formatting—especially markdown tags—indicates this is LLM generated content, which isn't permitted. pburka (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A WP:BEFORE returns no independent reliable secondary coverage; all cited sources are self-published, social-media or sponsored content. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR; reads as WP:NOTPROMO. Onatic (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- LLM generated, but would be delete (self-published, not GNG in any case). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could well be speedied per WP:G15, because obviously no human reviewed this. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet the 2 clear-cut criteria, and I don't want to debate the more subjective ones, especially since I try to assume good-faith of most people's actions jolielover♥talk 18:34, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to edit my comment for clarity and say that it meets the spirit if not the letter of WP:G15, but an edit conflict got in the way. That said, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. This is so obviously bad and a waste of everyone's time that the assumption of good faith is incinerated. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - everyone should know that we are not a soapbox and we are not Grokpedia. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wafy Campus Kalikavu

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

Non notable education institution with minimal coverage. Fails NORG. Thilsebatti (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Islam, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article is currently an educational stub, and stub articles are acceptable under WP:STUB. The subject appears to have coverage in independent reliable sources, and the article has clear scope for further improvement and expansion.

Per WP:PRESERVE, improving and sourcing the article is preferable to deletion. The current concerns seem related to article development rather than a clear lack of notability.Shemmap (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails in GNG as well as WP:NSCHOOL. Couldn't find anything with SIGCOV in additional searches. @Shemmap, WP:NEXIST indeed mentions that Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, but for that the sources need to be found. Merely alluding to WP:SOURCESEXIST doesn't help. Please provide your WP:THREE sources and kindly avoid the ones already present in the article since they are either PRIMARY or lack SIGCOV. BhikhariInformer (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Existing references are largely routine, primary, or directory-style mentions and do not establish notability. Despite additional searches, no substantial independent coverage could be located to satisfy Wikipedia’s notability requirements for educational institutions. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, association with larger educational or religious networks alone is insufficient to confer standalone notability. EduExplorer47 (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hakeem Faizy Adrisseri

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

I propose merging the article on "Hakeem Faizy Adrisseri" into Coordination of Islamic Colleges because the subject's notability appears to derive primarily from his role and activities within the organization, and the current article does not demonstrate sufficient independent coverage in reliable secondary sources to justify a standalone biography per Wikipedia:Notability (people). Relevant, verifiable information about his contributions can be more appropriately covered within the broader context of the Coordination of Islamic Colleges article, improving content organization and reducing duplication. EduExplorer47 (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related AfD discussions. BhikhariInformer (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related AfD discussions. BhikhariInformer (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related AfD discussions. BhikhariInformer (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of India-related AfD discussions. BhikhariInformer (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose merge~~ - I oppose the merging of this article into Coordination of Islamic Colleges. The subject's entire role and notability are not based solely on the organisation. On the other hand, Coordination of Islamic Colleges is a general educational organisation with its own governing body and institutional significance, and it is not centred around the subject of this article.

As mentioned in the controversy section of the article, the subject was once removed from a governing position within the organisation. This itself shows that the organisation and the individual are separate subjects. In such a scenario, merging the article would reduce the biographical content into a news style timeline within the organisation article.

A merge would also risk losing independently verifiable biographical context which is suitable for a standalone article.

Keep - I propose keeping the article "Hakeem Faizy Adrisseri" as a standalone article. At first glance, it may appear that the subject's primary notability is connected only with the organisation, but the available sources and references indicate otherwise. In many of the published sources, the subject is discussed independently as a scholar, speaker, educational leader, and public figure, rather than merely as an office bearer of the organisation.

Several sources discuss the subject directly in contexts beyond routine organisational mentions, including educational leadership, scholarly contributions, public programmes, and speeches. These sources support the possibility of further expanding and improving the article with better referencing and encyclopaedic structure.

While the current article may still require improvement in sourcing and formatting, this is an issue of article quality rather than notability. Per WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE, the existence of additional usable sources suggests that improvement is preferable to merging or deletion.

Shem.iz (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that all of the above (wall of) text was written by Shem.iz. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (Ibn Hisham)

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

Note: This merge proposal was originally opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (Ibn Ishaq) § Merge the Ibn Hisham page here

– FaviFake (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge the Ibn Hisham page to Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (Ibn Ishaq)

There is a page Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (Ibn Hisham). Ibn Hishams work is a derivation of Ibn Ishaqs and its how Ibn Ishaqs work is known to us, so these should not be a separate page, even though there were other derivations of Ibn Ishaqs sira Pogenplain (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Qureshi

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

Promotional i.e. non-neutral content, unsourced false content which is not supported by historical sources at all and is most supported by local subcontinental family tradition, not encyclopedic at all, seems to be the view points of an editor who presumably is related to the subject and has expressed their own emotions when their claim has been refuted on this article itself, and details of the actual Quraysh tribe are already it's own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al-Budhi (talk • contribs) 06:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Ethnic groups, History, Islam, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and India. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD was malformed and has been fixed. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kepler-1229b (talk · contribs) tried to revert to an older version that was not LLM slop, but they did not go back far enough. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~and WP:TNT per nom.~~Merge with List of people with surname Qureshi per PamD. I indeed tried to revert the AI slop, but the version I reverted to was about as bad and I didn't really know what to do there. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 14:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On one hand, Qureshi is a surname, and Wikipedia contains numerous biographies of people with the name. On the other hand, there does seem to be a fair amount of non-neutral commentary in the article history. A proper surname page is warranted, but I'll leave it to others to determine if that can be done through regular editing, or if it requires TNT. Cnilep (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related AfD discussions. Cnilep (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's a surname. I've added a ref from the OUP's Dictionary of American Family Names. Note that there exists List of people with surname Qureshi. If there is very little sourced content about the name itself, it would be sensible to merge that list into this page - it's a common format, and means that the reader looking for a particular person of whom they only know the surname will have one less click to make. If there are content disputes about the article, those should be resolved on its talk page, not at AfD. PamD 13:16, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of people with surname Qureshi: Not a lot that's salvageable from the article, but the definition of Qureshi can be combined into the lead for the list. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 12:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that the list should be merged (back) into the name article, so we end up with it all at Qureshi rather than "List of ..."? So it's really "Keep and merge the list into the name page". PamD 16:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asjad Raza Khan

AfDs for this article:

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

The available sources do not provide significant independent coverege of the subject. Most of the sources seems to be press releases and self-published material. The grand Grand Mufti of India claim also seems questionable as after Akhtar Raza Khan, Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar is nationally and internationally recognised as the Grand Mufti of India in multiple sources.[24], [25], [26] At the moment, this does not appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownCanary61 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. – NJD-DE (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kindly have a look at past deletion discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asjad Raza Khan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asjad Raza Khan (2nd nomination). The subject is notable without any questions. I think this is a reply when an editor nominated Kaif Raza Khan, this editor nominated this article and commented Keep on the Kaif's AFD. Sorry if my thinking is wrong, not attacking anyone. Wanderer (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think talking about another editor is relevant here. Better to focus on the article itself and whether the sources are enough for notability. Bringing up someone’s past AfD discussions or guessing intentions does not really help the discussion. BrownCanary61 (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there may be some conflict of interest here because Draft:Aala Hazrat Tajushshariah Welfare Society also looks related to Asjad Raza Khan and same circle, and there were earlier attempts too to create Draft:Farman Hasan Khan which later got deleted under WP:G11 with promotional/conflict of interest concerns in the log. BrownCanary61 (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownCanary61 Is Kaif Raza Khan out of this circle? He is also a claimed descendant of Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi. I already said sorry if my thinking is wrong. Wanderer (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Better to keep discussion focused on article and sourcing itself rather than personal thinking or assumptions. BrownCanary61 (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Others

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

Judaism topics

Rubashkin family

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

no WP:GNG that discuss the family as a subject. The article is a bunch of factoids about separate famili mambers: who owns what, who was legal trouble for what, etc., i.e., it is WP:SYNTH --Altenmann >talk 03:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Judaism, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article does not add any new information of importance that is not already covered in articles of other family members. lynngol >talk
Delete per nom. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 14:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Rescuers: Last Chance Project

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

Fails WP:NFF. Nothing to support notability found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:35, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Judaism, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:35, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note on soft closure: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 18:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable references are for other movies in the series. Recreate once we have information about this film. SenshiSun (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Rescuers (2011 film): Parent title as ATD. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:50, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhism

Miscellaneous