Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion

Points of interest related to Religion on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Purge page cache

watch

Theodor-Fliedner-Gymnasium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:TNT. Article created October 2024. Retrieval date on some sources showing 2019. It would just take a lot of time to go through each source. It would be more effective to get of it, then someone else can re-create it if needed. Created and edited upon by a problematic AI injector. See the talk page and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Possible_academic_boosterism_ref_spamming. Graywalls (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Religion, and Germany. Graywalls (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep: The article appears to be a translation from another language version, consistent with Wikipedia’s guidelines on cross-language contributions. The retrieval dates correspond to the original language sources, which is standard practice in translations. The content is factual, well-sourced, and enhances coverage on this topic. 2A02:C7C:EC31:4200:5935:4048:17E1:63F9 (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC) blocked sock Flounder fillet (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  GPT Zero says above text is 100% AI... and this is a deletion discussion about fake reference inserting AI account... Graywalls (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:::This not correct. It is a proper translation following standard Wiki guidelines, not an AI-generated text. Please avoid these unfounded accusations. If you have concerns, consider addressing them constructively rather than through repeated reverts and deletion sprees. 185.137.36.82 (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This IP has been blocked as a sock of the article's creator. Flounder fillet (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:::Both you and user Graywalls are jointly engaging in actions that appear to target and silence the main profile in the context of constructive talks. If the profile is blocked, any engagement can only occur through IPs, which may change frequently due to being away from home – this is a technical matter, not intentional. 185.137.36.82 (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Suspicious vandal-created article. If this is indeed a translation from another language as the IP claims, it is unattributed (see WP:TFOLWP) and should be deleted as a copyright violation. Flounder fillet (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep & add the corresponding hint. Translations are common and even encouraged by the Wikipedia through the translation editor. 185.137.36.88 (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)blocked sock --Flounder fillet (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:::These highly immature blocking actions, especially in the context of content-driven opinions that seek to solve the situation, constitute bullying, harassment, and silencing. 185.137.36.82 (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to dispute your block at your account's talk page. Evading it goes against policy and will result only in more blocks. Flounder fillet (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pulaksagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Bio stub that was moved from draft despite minimal sourcing. I can’t see any reliable independent sources so bringing here for consensus.. Mccapra (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and India. Mccapra (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: All I see is news coverage from Hindi local sources, with no significant coverage sources found. The subject fails to meet GNG. It was moved from the Draft space to the Main space because the draftification was done without consensus. Per WP:DRAFTNO, articles older than 90 days should not be draftified without discussion or consensus. GrabUp - Talk 04:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - having a single source is essentially original research. Bearian (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I added a ref. Please take a look at it; I'm unsure of the quality. It may be churnalism. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @A. B.: Hi, just a heads-up— Medium is considered a blog and a user-generated source per WP:MEDIUM. I’ve reverted your edit accordingly. Hope this helps clarify! GrabUp - Talk 05:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priesthood Sunday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable annual event - no coverage in RS, seems to only be celebrated by a few organisations. Flounder fillet (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Religion. Flounder fillet (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I’m unsure. If this was kept, three unsourced sections would need to be sourced or deleted. Bearian (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably deleted, page creator is currently in ANI for using LLMs to create hoaxes and those sections also look like LLM output. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vahanas used in Goan temples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No sign this article isn't just WP:SYNTH. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Goa. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:LIST - it’s just a random list of things in other things, without any verifiable references, and without even trying to tie any of the things in other things into any coherent thing. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lorgius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged uncited for years and I could not find much in Google Scolar Chidgk1 (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. People venerated as saints by major churches are clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This pre-Vatican martyr never came through a formal Canonization process. All the the sources about him are literally a word or two. I’m not even sure if he really existed. There’s no evidence of a cultus. Bearian (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's quite probable he didn't exist, but that's not unusual for early Christian saints, few of whom ever went through a formal canonisation process. It's whether he's venerated that's significant, and he clearly is, even if not that commonly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Lorgius (Lorgio in Italian, or "San Lorgio" which works as a search term for him) is certainly a venerated saint, with churches named after him. Multiple sources exist supporting this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge what limited content we have to Martyrs of Caesarea. While it does appear that there is some veneration of him, I can't find any records of churches named after him. He receives a single mention in the index of Basil Watkins' encyclopedia of saints and he and the other Caesarea martyrs receive a single mention in Aeterna Press's book of saints, which says "Little to nothing is known of these saints, and even their names are uncertain." There's no WP:SIGCOV of this saint to meet WP:GNG, but redirecting is a reasonable alternative to deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Martyrs of Caesarea per Dclemens1971. He is verifiable as venerated saint (if not as an historical figure) but there is so little info that a sentence in the broader article is all that's really appropriate. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect as above - saints of major churches are notable. Ingratis (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

Joy Deep as Sorrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A former redirect that's been reverted back into an article. I tried a WP:BEFORE search, but got a page full of lists of the songs on the album. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Christianity. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GreenPark Christian Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

One-line stub for an obscure religious private school in St. Louis. The only references are non-independent. I wouldn't really call this to be significant coverage. This makes a passing mention of the school closing in 2010. There's a couple sentences here about the school closing, but that article is about a different entity. I just don't see a pass of WP:NSCHOOL here; it says something about the article subject that this school has apparently been closed for over 15 years and our article on it has not been updated with that information. Hog Farm _Talk 04:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Missouri. Hog Farm _Talk 04:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Sherlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Run of the mill everyday person that has played in a handful of bands with no particular suitable redirect target. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Graywalls (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Australia. Graywalls (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. Current sourcing is stuff that can't be used for notability, like band's own page, facebook, youtube. Cannot tell if this guy passes any of the WP:NMUSICIAN checks either such as charting. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going to try and find sources for this guy. He was in one of the best-selling heavy metal bands in Australia, at the peak of their popularity, so there's probably stuff out there.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whelp. There's lots of stuff about the bands he's in/been in, but little about him. I suspect there's probably print mentions in magazines or newspapers, but that's going to be difficult to dig through.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless something establishes him notable for himself, I say he's not notable. This works the other way as well. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership. from WP:INHERITORG Graywalls (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That's why I'm not counting that coverage of the bands he's been in, because that would be more appropriate for the requisite articles. I do see that an HM interview is referenced, but not cited, in the article. I'll try and see if I can access that. If it's an interview of "him", that would help towards individual notability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Provisional) Keep vote, because there's an HM interview with/profile of him in existence. It needs to be accessed and cited, but accessibility doesn't determine notability, the coverage need only *exist*.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Ah, it's accessible online: here it is--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6:, found it. here I think interview with the subject can be used to verify information about the subject but obviously, words from the subject is not independent, so I question its value for conferring notability, which requires secondary source. Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that he's covered in an interview by an independent reliable source would confer notability, but it's just one source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject does not have significant coverage in independent sources hence fail WP:GNG and WP:Notability for musician (I can't find any traces of a major award)Tesleemah (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priesthood Sunday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable annual event - no coverage in RS, seems to only be celebrated by a few organisations. Flounder fillet (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Religion. Flounder fillet (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I’m unsure. If this was kept, three unsourced sections would need to be sourced or deleted. Bearian (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably deleted, page creator is currently in ANI for using LLMs to create hoaxes and those sections also look like LLM output. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Martial Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article fails the second WP:NOT test of WP:GNG by being an WP:NOESSAY that is full of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The section listing Christian martial arts programs violates WP:NOTDIR. Sources are primary; while there are several self-published sources available, there is no independent, reliable, secondary coverage of this topic on which to base an encyclopedic treatment. (A quick note on the provenance of this page: I draftified it in September during new page review and the creator later returned it to mainspace. Another editor inadvertently draftified it a second time and then reverted per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Hence it is now at AfD.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Martial arts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST. This is not ready to be an encyclopedic entry as it is not objective and contains WP:PEACOCK. Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I understand Wikipedia editing (I am new to it and learning), one of the first things I read is that editors are to try to improve articles and make them ready for Wikipedia. Why seek deletion when, based on your comment (not ready), improvement and inclusion appear to be viable? Bushido77 (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have removed all of the un-needed bold and left it as italics (Bushido77 has already been warned about). I have no rebuttal to this comment by Bushido77 as it appears they have not understood or refuse to listen to anything from the several discussions concerning their articles. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize if I missed something. What I read in the Wikipedia guidelines is that some bold type is allowable. Please advise as to which article says no bold type. Thank you. Bushido77 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is true that the article as it currently stands is more of a sermon than an encyclopedic entry and would need much revision, perhaps on an entry on religious views on martial arts or something of that sort could be created in the future. While I have found articles analyzing martial arts from a Christian perspective (and that is indeed the sourcing being provided), there is not enough quality sourcing and scholarly analysis regarding a martial arts specialty within Christianity to create an encyclopedic article. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 23:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the article "would need much revision", would it not be appropriate to allow for such revisions to be made, rather than simply delete the article? Bushido77 (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Rejected three times by three different editors as a draft (on top of at least one regular decline) and for good reason, since there's no sourcing to support the claim that this is a recognised type of martial art. It's all original research. --bonadea contributions talk 23:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To my knowledge, no one claimed it is a recognized type of martial art. Similar to taekwondo and karate, Christian martial arts are also a subset of the martial arts. Under taekwondo and karate there are thousands of different developed styles. It is similar with Christian martial arts, under this banner there are many different styles. Bushido77 (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

According to the Wikipedia page about editors I read, the first response of an editor is to seek to improve the page to make it acceptable for inclusion. Instead biased opinions have done nothing to encourage correcting the page... just deleting it and a months worth of work goes down the toilet.

It appears that Wikipedia editors pick and choose the parts of the Wikipedia guides that they want to adhere to.

NONE of the article is original research. Bushido77 (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should assume good faith here on Wikipedia. Complaining like this will have no effect on whether the article gets deleted, and only serves to antagonize others. Stockhausenfan (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. My frustration with the Wikipedia process got the better of me. Bushido77 (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus = four of us are in a room and I have $100. The other three agree that I must give them the money and they take it. Consensus got them what they wanted... but the majority does not make it right. Bushido77 (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, decisions are based on consensus, not voting. Consensus is reached through reasoned arguments that demonstrate both the article’s usefulness and its reliance on reliable, independent sources, neither of which this article has. Sorry. Nswix (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus is not based on "voting", why have I been told to only highlight "keep" once because we are only allowed to vote once? It has also been referred to as voting by others as well. Bushido77 (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bushido, you are WP:SHOUTing again. Remove your bold text from this AfD, and only bold the word keep once, to make it easier for whoever closes this deletion. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - i rejected the draft and author decides to move to mainspace. Is complete WP:OR. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize. That was due to me being a newbie and someone else telling me that I could do that. Bushido77 (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Three of the four sources are WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and the fourth is non-notable, so the article fails WP:GNG. DesiMoore (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Four sources?" I am not sure what you are looking at. When I created the article that were about 30 books and magazine articles (including Black Belt magazine) that discussed Christian martial arts and about 30 links to Christian martial arts ministries.

  Sad - I just looked and someone edited out all of those various links. Now I see why you only saw four. There used to be many more. Bushido77 (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There is a total lack of significant coverage. The claim in 2024 that we have no standards is untenable. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC) FWIW, the links were removed as spam. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you look at the article before they deleted all of the links? There were approximately 30 books and magazine articles and approximately 30 Christian martial arts ministries.

  I have no idea who or why all of those references were deleted from the article. I have them saved, if yo would like to see the many links. (Are they still available somewhere here on Wikipedia? I am new to editing.) Bushido77 (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How can links to Black Belt magazine be spam? How can links to books be spam? How could links to Christian martial arts ministries be spam?

  Wow, Wikipedia is extremely confusing. Bushido77 (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bushido77 the changes can all be seen in the article's history. It's true, there are a lot of rules here, which can be overwhelming for a newcomer (which is why many of us recommend that newcomers learn the most important rules by working on improving existing content rather than trying to write new articles from scratch first).

  In your case, I think the most important guidelines that you need to consider are Reliable sources and § Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. As others have already pointed out, assuming good faith on the part of other editors, and accepting that Wikipedia works by consensus, are also essential. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I am trying to learn. But I still don't understand how Black Belt magazine and published books are "spam." Bushido77 (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Heisner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Biography of a Christian pastor and martial arts practitioner. While he was without any doubt an very worthy person who did good things for his community, I do not think he meets any notability criteria, neither WP:GNG/WP:BASIC nor WP:NATHLETE. The many sources are either primary and non-independent, non-reliable per WP:RS, or brief mentions in local newspapers. Taken together, these do not constitute significant coverage. bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Martial arts, and New York. bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said "The many sources are either primary and non-independent, non-reliable"

My response: How are ~60 newspaper articles not reliable? How are newspaper articles not secondary sources. Heisner did not own any of the newspapers. How is Robert Heisner's involvement in giving the key to the city of Niagara Falls, NY to Shihan Hironori Otsuka (founder of Wado Kai) not notable?

How can one Wikipedia editor can override other editors who have already approved the article? Bushido77 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You misread the nomination rationale. The sources are a) primary and non-independent or b) non-reliable or c) brief mentions in local newspapers. Taken together, these do not constitute significant coverage. You may also have missed the part where I referred to the specific notability criteria that must be met. Being involved in giving the key to a city to a notable individual is not grounds for notability. (I will not bludgeon the discussion by responding to everything, but I thought the misunderstanding should be cleared up.) --bonadea contributions talk 15:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said "The sources are a) primary and non-independent or b) non-reliable or c) brief mentions in local newspapers."

My response: I don't misunderstand. ~60 newspaper articles and mentions is definitely notable. Newspapers are secondary and reliable sources (at least as I read the Wikipedia policies.)

How can one Wikipedia editor can override other editors who have already approved the article? Bushido77 (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heisner was not just a martial arts practitioner. He developed a new style combining seven different martial arts in which he was black belt ranked and instructor certified. He also launched a Christian martial arts ministry. Bushido77 (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While he may have had a positive local impact, the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines WP:GNG. Most of the sources are either brief mentions or affiliated with Heisner, failing to provide the significant, independent coverage required. Most of them are mentions of him doing a performance in a local area. One sentence per article is not what we are looking for. Additionally, the tone of the article is not neutral WP:NPOV and reads more like a tribute than an encyclopedia entry. User:Bushido77, who has openly stated they were a student of Heisner for over 40 years, has a conflict of interest WP:COI, further compromising the article’s neutrality and reliability. This article contains unencyclopedic content with excessive detail, violating WP:UNDUE, and relies on primary sources, which do not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliability WP:RS. For these reasons, I believe this article should be deleted. Ktkvtsh (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  KEEP - the majority is NOT always right.

  Absolutely! I admitted right from the beginning (as a Christian I am an honest person.) Even though I admitted it, I worked hard to make it neutral and the article was approved.

  So, the majority will remove a valuable article from Wikipedia. The Heisner page has had more than 800 visitors in the last 30 days, which is more than many other martial artists pages on this platform. Bushido77 (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You said "Most of the sources are either brief mentions or affiliated with Heisner..."

  My response: none of the newspapers are "affiliated with Heisner". He did not own or work for any of the newspapers.

  You said "Additionally, the tone of the article is not neutral..."

  My response: I worked on that to the point that the article was approved. Wouldn't the proper thing to do be to continue working on the tone, rather than deleting the article?

  You said "who has openly stated they were a student of Heisner for over 40 years, has a conflict of interest "

  My response: I honestly admitted that from the very onset of the article. I read the documents you cited and none of them forbade creating the article. It was encouraged against, but not forbidden. I am one of very few who knows the details of the founding of the karate system better than nearly all others. Someone should have told me I could not write the article, rather than let me waste 4 or 5 months working on it and getting past 5 or 6 rejections before it was finally accepted.

  You said "This article contains unencyclopedic content with excessive detail..."

  My response: in this case, would the proper response be to rewrite the article rather than delete it?

  You said "and relies on primary sources, which do not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliability"

  My response there are very few primary sources in the article, and there are many secondary sources that validate the few primary sources.

  All in all, deleting the article is the wrong course of action. Improving the article is the appropriate steps to take. Bushido77 (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bushido77, We all appreciate the effort you’ve put into the article. Wikipedia’s standards focus on notability and reliable sourcing, not personal impact or page views. Yes, you disclosed your connection to Heisner. Even with good intentions, that connection can affect the article’s neutrality WP:NPOV. We recommend that editors with close ties to a subject let others take the lead to maintain impartiality WP:COI. I believe the best course is to let this article go. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You said - " Even with good intentions, that connection can affect the article’s neutrality..."

  My response - I am not even suggesting that the article is completely neutral. I said I worked hard to make it neutral and the article was accepted.

  You said - "I believe the best course is to let this article go"

  My response - I completely disagree and your approach seems contradictory to Wikipedia editor guidelines. Somewhere I read (I have to find it) that the first response from editors should be to improve the article. But in this case the first response is to try to delete the article. Bushido77 (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bushido77, honestly, this whole discussion feels like it’s veered off track. It seems like you’re more interested in debating every point than actually finding a productive path forward. At the end of the day, the purpose here isn’t to win an argument—it’s to determine if the article belongs on Wikipedia based on clear policies, not personal feelings or effort spent.

  We get it—you’ve worked hard on this, and that’s commendable. But dragging out this discussion with repetitive justifications isn’t going to change the reality that articles need to meet notability and sourcing standards, and this one just doesn’t. No one is out to get you, and this isn’t personal. It's about maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia, and every editor here is trying to do that in good faith.

  If you’re serious about contributing to Wikipedia in a meaningful way, maybe it’s time to step back, look at the broader picture, and accept that not every subject fits. There’s no shame in that—what matters is learning from this process and applying it to future contributions. But we’re not going to make progress if this stays stuck in a loop of defensiveness. Let’s keep it civil and focused on the task at hand, or we’ll just waste more time going in circles. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You said - "It seems like you’re more interested in debating every point than actually finding a productive path forward"

  My response - a productive path forward does not include deleting a good article, about a notable individual, about a notable individual who contributed heavily to the martial arts, his community, Christianity, and via himself and others he impacted, the world.

  If you have a productive path forward I will listen. So far all I have heard are self-justifications to delete (not go forward with) the article.

  ____________

  You said - "Let’s keep it civil and focused on the task at hand, or we’ll just waste more time going in circles"

  My response - I am all for it. But civil is not deleting an article based on what I believe are biased conclusions. Give me a constructive path forward... not a path to the trash heap.

  I am listening. Bushido77 (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Aside from the things mentioned above about him not meeting notability, the article was created by someone with a declared conflict of interest Nswix (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You said "Aside from the things mentioned above about him not meeting notability, the article was created by someone with a declared conflict of interest"

  My response: where do Wikipedia rules forbid someone who knows the subject from writing an article? i wish someone would have told me that it was forbidden before I put 4 or 5 months of work into writing the article. Bushido77 (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. Deleting it appears to be a wrong response to some issues that can be corrected with rewrites and positive edits. Bushido77 (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bushido77, please remove the bold from one of your "keeps". You are not permitted to !vote twice. (I strongly recommend moving bold text from your discussion except for your single !vote, since it makes the discussion hard to follow. Italics can be used to express emphasis.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia and have no idea how to edit or delete a comment. Is there a way? Bushido77 (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bushido77 just press edit and change your text. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only see "edit source" no edit. I use the visual editor.  :-(

I am really sorry that I tried Wikipedia. It seems very biased. Bushido77 (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I reviewed each of the very many sources, and the vast majority of these are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in WP:RSSM and other outlets. There is very little evidence that Heisner was discussed with WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. However, three sources do appear to get close to WP:SIGCOV, although one is short and it and another seem to be based solely on an interview with Heisner. They are two articles in the Buffalo News (here, here) and one article in the Niagara Falls Gazette. I am truly on the fence so I'd submit these for Bonadea, Ktkvtsh, Nswix and other editors' consideration as to whether they qualify toward WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Even if the outcome is ultimately "keep" or "no consensus," this article will still need to be WP:TNT'd because the vast majority of it is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You said "and the vast majority of these are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES "

  My response: not possible. Heisner did not write those newspaper articles. He did not work for any of those papers.

  You said "and one article in the Niagara Falls Gazette"

  My response: there are several (I count 18 links) articles in the Niagara Falls Gazette.

  As for blowing it up and starting again, that is unlikely. I spent 4 or 5 months writing, correcting, making it more neutral, etc. It was rejected 5 or 6 times before it was finally accepted. It is unlikely that I will be spending more time in what seems to me to be a biased atmosphere.

  Why did the other editors accept the article?

  I am all for improving the article, but deleting it after it has been published and after over 1,000 page views in such a short time, seems to me to be short-sighted and a biased (non-neutral) decision. Bushido77 (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  First of all, please stop once and for all using bold text in the visual editor. It is disruptive formatting in a deletion discussion. The vast majority of the news stories you added are trivial mentions--a single quote from Heisner or a mention in a community section that he was going to teach a class at the YMCA. Often the mentions were his own ads, which yes, are primary sources, as are all the links to websites associated with him. There was only one Gazette article that got close to "significant coverage," which is what is required for a source to count toward a notability guideline. Finally, this is a rather counterproductive response to the only editor in this discussion thus far who has identified any sources that might support a "keep" decision. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You said - " Often the mentions were his own ads"

  My response - Not true! His ads comprise three or four of the 60 newspapers and that was only to establish his schools under Park Jong-soo. One of those articles was put in the Toronto Yellow Pages by Master Park Jong-soo, not by Robert Heisner. Thus a secondary source, and one of the 12 original tae kwon do leaders.

  I am not desiring to be counter-productive, but one of your comments was blow it up and start again. That is not the right approach. Bushido77 (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your view of what constitutes a primary source is significantly out of alignment with Wikipedia's. I don't have any more to say on this. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You said - "Your view of what constitutes a primary source is significantly out of alignment with Wikipedia's"

  Copied from Wikipedia about primary sources:

  "In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study."

  My response - almost nothing in the Robert Heisner article is a primary source (the only exception that comes to mind is the book we wrote and a couple of advertisements he placed in local newspapers.)

  Artifacts - possibly Master Park Jong Soo's 1970's Toronto Yellow Pages article

  Nothing else appears to fall into the primary source category (that I can think of.) Bushido77 (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I see where your confusion comes from! It looks like you have been basing your understanding on the first couple of sentences in the Wikipedia article Primary source. Instead, you need to read and understand the Wikipedia policy page WP:PRIMARY. (It is also linked from the very top of the article you quoted from.) Wikipedia's definition isn't much different from the one used by historians, but the WP article doesn't mention all different kinds of primary sources in the introduction, so that's another reason to go straight to the policy page which is written with a different purpose in mind. --bonadea contributions talk 16:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Dclemens1971! I truly appreciate the work you did – I still don't think the sourcing is at all sufficient, though. As you say, one of the Buffalo News pieces is primary, so that's no good; the other one and the Niagara Falls Gazette are only slightly more substantial than all the trivial mentions in other papers. Added to the fact that both papers are hyper-local, I just can't see it. I'm not sure if I should go ahead and remove all the stuff that would have to be removed if the article were to be kept, just so we can get a better idea – as Ktkvtsh also pointed out above, there's tons of unencyclopedic detail in there. Am a little hesitant to put more time into an article I don't believe meets any notability criteria, though.

Bushido77, you say above that you are not sure how to remove the bold formatting from your comments. Would it be OK if I or some other participant went ahead and did that for you (except for one "keep")? --bonadea contributions talk 19:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The keep thing is fine by me.

According to the Wikipedia articles I have/am reading, the vast majority of this article is secondary sources. Yes, there are some primary sources, but they are not the majority. Bushido77 (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus - if four of us are in a room and I have $100 and the other three come to the consensus that I should give it to them... then they take it... that does not make the consensus right.

I believe this attempt to delete this article is biased and not neutral. Bushido77 (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have removed all superfluous bold formatting from your posts. Each of us gets to make one single bolded "keep"/"delete" comment, and you have already been asked several times not to add emphasis by using bold formatting. Thank you! --bonadea contributions talk 20:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article that I read said that some bold was acceptable. What article says no bolding? Bushido77 (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked more than once not to use bold for emphasis in this AfD discussion, and have been asked the same thing in other discussions. Please show your fellow editors the courtesy of adapting your preferred formatting style when we ask you to do so. There is another thing as well: you had bolded the word "delete" at least four times. In an AfD discussion, we all get to make one bolded "keep" or "delete" comment, to show what our preference is. I hope this makes it clear. --bonadea contributions talk 09:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with bonadea. much of this is just passing coverage of a person. there is nothing particularly WP:NOTABLE according to WP:GNG standards. If nothing else, it could maybe be put into draftspace for further work. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said - "agree with bonadea. much of this is just passing coverage of a person. there is nothing particularly WP:NOTABLE "

My response - 60+ newspaper articles are not notable? How many articles are you in?

You offer a biased and skewed opinion.

I wish Wikipedia offered an unbiased mediation option. Bushido77 (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does this work? Do I have to file a Dispute Resolution before you guys delete the article? Or does a dispute resolution need to be filed after the decision has been made? I don't want to miss my opportunity. Thank you. Bushido77 (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bushido77 No, you go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That looks like the page to go to after the page has been deleted. Correct?

Is dispute resolution an option before the page has been deleted? I would prefer to avoid deletion if possible. Bushido77 (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DRN is not appropriate for an AfD which is itself a community discussion. It would be turned down if you tried. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any type of dispute resolution available in a case like this? Bushido77 (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion is the dispute resolution. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said - "This whole discussion is the dispute resolution."

My response - It does not seem like a dispute resolution. It seems like a democratic vote to keep or destroy the article. Resolution implies resolving the problem, this appears to seek to destroy content (rather than fix it.)

That seems very unfair. A bunch of people band together against an article with:

• four or five months of work
• tons of research
• 60 + links to newspapers
• ~1,350+ page views in less than two months
• Better and more complete content than many similar pages I have looked at (including one of Heisner's instructors)
• a person who developed a new martial art style

But, if there is no other dispute resolution options, I guess that is that. Bushido77 (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious why the editors who approved the article and subsequently worked on the article are not involved in this discussion. Bushido77 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bushido admits to writing a book with Heisner."For example, I took the photo of his Wado-Kai certificate and all of them are copyrighted in the book that Mr. Heisner and myself wrote". He does say he sold it at cost to students.Doug Weller talk 06:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Promotional puff piece which over exaggerates the trivial, fakes verification and even provides a commercial link to try sell this pages authors book. If there is any notability in here this hierography hides it under a pile of mundane. Someone without a coi may give it a try later but this needs to go. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought Wikipedia had a policy to assume good faith? Your comment does not appear to assume good faith. You said "Promotional puff piece which over exaggerates the trivial, fakes verification and even provides a commercial link to try sell this pages authors book."

  As previously discussed with regards to the book, all of the photos on this page are in that book which Heisner and myself hold the copyrights to. So the book was added for two reasons. 1) It is part of Robert Heisner's legacy (which I have seen on other pages. 2) It validates the copyright owner ship of the photos. I added both the book itself and a link to the copyright office to the article in good faith.

  Thanks for admitting that there may be notability in this article. In light of the possibility of being notable, I think deleting the article is the wrong decision. Fixing the article would be the correct approach. Bushido77 (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I will recuse myself from !voting delete, but as the original reviewer who declined the draft article, my original opinion on article quality, notability, and NPOV grounds still stands, even though article is in mainspace. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 05:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am curious, why did you not delete it originally? Bushido77 (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Deletion and keeping it as a draft are two different things. I am leaning toward draftification (the article is not published and easily available for the public to see) if you promise the community of editors not take this page back to the mainspace (where published articles live) until multiple experienced editors tell you that the article is suitable to be published and give you advice.

It is unlikely the article will ever be published because there are very few high-quality sources about Heisner but I think that in the far future, with the help of many editors, it could be published. I cannot promise that this article will not be deleted, but this could be a reasonable compromise if you stop moving this page back into the mainspace. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 00:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a newbie, I think I moved it back once, because someone told me that was a viable option. I would prefer that to throwing it in the trash. But how do we know the same thing won't happen again?

• the article was moved to the mainspace by an editor (not me)
• after an editor moved it to mainspace, another eidtor tagged to be deleted
• what would prevent that from happening again and again?
• would it be again possible that I and others continue to work on it for many more months.
• One or more editors approve to move it to the mainspace.
• And then one editor tags it again for deletion?

Would your recommendation possibly be repeating that cycle? Bushido77 (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning towards Draftify. There are several stories (primary sources) about the subject over many years in the local Western New York media. So he approaches notability, but isn’t obviously there. The problems are (1) there are zero secondary sources - as any librarian or legal scholar would define the term - and (2) it’s written very poorly, violating several major rules of The Elements of Style, almost to the point of deleting and starting over. If one of my students in my legal research and writing class at Bryant & Stratton College had written this, it would be covered in Red ink. I have reached out to an expert on this area, and need some time to research it. From a procedural standpoint, there are tendentious arguments to keep that, from my perspective, are weakening their position. If you don’t know the difference between primary and secondary sources, or how to write well, or how to argue in good faith, then perhaps you should not be editing an encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your feedback. I have read the primary and secondary source article two times fully and partially a third time, and honestly I don't see how most of the links would qualify as primary. (There are some primary references added for specific reasons, such as demonstrating copyright ownership.) I will read the primary/secondary sources again.

  I will also review the elements of style page. Bushido77 (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I’ve tried to come up with an alternative to deletion, but the arguments to keep, keep getting worse. I reached out to former colleagues who are from the Niagara Falls area, and they have never heard of him. I tried to drop hints, but they were ignored. If you don’t understand what we are not, and you refuse to learn about basic research that a two-year college graduate would know, then I can’t fix it. I’ve saved over 120 articles over the years, and based on my experience and research, this is unsalvageable. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Nelson Cushing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not well sourced, and of course, I couldn't find any in a WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Question: what about Cushing's biography: "Josiah Nelson Cushing: Missionary and Scholar, Burma" A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @A. B. My personal observation is that an article that relies on only one reliable source, like the one you've pointed out, will always be a low quality stub at best. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The reliable source is a complete a book about the subject so it should provide information for an article bigger than a stub. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @A. B. Fair enough. I was thinking more about quality than article length, and stub class is mostly article length. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Extend. The article may not be well sourced, but I believe as much time as can be afforded should be given to allow editors to find a source FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FLIPPINGOUT My intent is to prevent an abandoned article due to overzealous eventualism. A week is long enough to find enough sources. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The biography is on the Web Archive but it's down for now. If there was a way to put an AfD on hold, I'd suggest waiting until the book is available to evaluate. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There appears to be at least one source that appears semi-reliable. This is from OMF International, a Christian organization founded by Hudson Taylor and the organization appears to be legit. Not going to give a definitive opinion yet, but there is potential for expansion ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 00:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Sourcing is terrible, but he did translate the Bible into a language spoken by 4.7 million people. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bearian If that can be reliably sourced, it would help the article be retained. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dream of horses, I have found a few brief references about his “Cushing Bible”: here in the Brown University Library, this biography, and the aforementioned OMF news story. There’s a funny story on page 9 of this newspaper about how his translation missed out on tones and made some interesting puns. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC) P.S. I’ve searched under alternative names, and found three more sources. We could also look under alternative spellings and names of the Shan language: Jingpo and Jinghpaw. Bearian (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bearian The first two can be summarized and put in the article via inline citations. The third one is a press release, which doesn't prove notability. The third one doesn't talk about about Cushing, at least not on page 9. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it I dream of horses. There’s a discussion of his translation on pages 51-53 of the pdf in this article which corresponds to pages 176-178 of the text, and refers to yer another name for the language, the Kachin. Bearian (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian Please add sources to the article. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that anyone else will do it. I have yet to create or even significantly expand an article, and so it's probably best that it isn't it. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. I have added several sources that refer to the subject’s pioneering work in translation of the Bible into the Shan language. Bearian (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keys for Kids Ministries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Only two references, did not see anything else on Google News. There was a discussion about notability in the talk page. Doesn't meet notability standards. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was actually familiar with this organization and its Down Gilead Lane show, and I was expecting to find at least something in a reliable source -- but didn't. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The CBN article might make organization notable, but I found nothing about them outside the listed sources. Not opposed to recreation should better sources about it arise, but I think that info about this ministry would be better located in an article about Charlie VanderMeer, who has a bit more coverage about his life. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 05:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you about VanderMeer. If someone were to create an article on him, I would support a redirect there, but until then delete is the only option. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helaman Jeffs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Renominating since the last discussion didn't attract much participation. There is no significant coverage at all of the subject. No SNGs apply. Notability is not inherited from family members. C F A 💬 22:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Latter Day Saints, and Arizona. C F A 💬 22:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he’s an heir presumptive to a sect of a sect, with heresies within heresies. The coverage is speculative at best. We are not a place for propaganda. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Due to him being mentioned in numerous News articles from the likes of Fox News, The Salt Lake Tribune. BBC News etc. as being the current leader of a controversial church/cult. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You commented this last time but have yet to provide any examples of significant coverage about the subject. Being mentioned in numerous News articles (emphasis mine) does not indicate notability. C F A 💬 21:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Alma (numismatist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Previously deleted as WP:Articles for deletion/Blake Alma (TV Host) and in the first nomination, and salted as Blake Alma. WP:REFBOMBED with unreliable sources, quotes, passing mentions, etc. with very little actual significant coverage cited.

(Not tagging for speedy deletion because it's been several years so things could plausibly have changed. But the refs here fail to convince me they have) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And let's titleblacklist .*blake.*alma once this is closed as delete so we can finally stop this campaign or whatever. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Radio, Television, Christianity, Florida, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article as provided demonstrates significant developments in Blake Alma's notability since the 2018 deletion. The sources cited, particularly WCPO (a major Cincinnati ABC affiliate), K-Love (a nationally syndicated radio network), and multiple Cincinnati Enquirer archive pieces, offer substantial, independent coverage that extends well beyond passing mentions or quotes.

These are not unreliable sources or self-promotion; they are established, reputable media outlets providing significant coverage of Alma's work and impact. The WCPO and Cincinnati Enquirer pieces offer in-depth reporting on Alma's activities and influence in the outdoor and conservation spheres.

This is not a case of WP:REFBOMBING. Each source included provides meaningful, substantial coverage. A thorough review of these sources, paying close attention to the depth of coverage and the independence of the reporting, is warranted.

The current body of coverage, coming from established and independent media outlets, meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. The subject has clearly gained significant attention since the previous AfD, justifying a reevaluation of his notability status. If there are specific concerns about any of the sources or their content, they should be addressed individually rather than dismissing the article outright. Delawaretallman (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed breakdown...I totally agree! I put a lot of effort into this article and it's great to see someone else recognizing how Alma's profile has grown since the other deletion which I wasn't aware of until a live admin told me. Those sources really do show he's become noteworthy for this page. Thanks @Delawaretallman Coincollector4500 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. Upon further review, some of the data in media coverage seems slightly like a form WP:REFBOMBING however, if cleaned up you should be just fine. Just use the secondary and primary sources that are in-depth. @Coincollector4500 Good luck! Delawaretallman (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, you quoted him on a religious statement from seemingly a personal social media account as the last source. I'd suggest you'd find that on a public account or another source. Looks like the K-Love article also quoted from that video so I suggest using that as the source. Delawaretallman (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: if kept, this needs to be moved to Blake Alma. StAnselm (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and that title is salted. That's how I found this article. I periodically run a report that looks for articles created at extra-long titles to evade salting. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears the title was salted 11 years ago however. Delawaretallman (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And that decision was reinforced several times since. You (plural) clearly knew you were circumventing a decision Wikipedia has made several times to not have an article on this person, and did it anyway. The lack of respect that shows for Wikipedia's processes is shocking. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does look like the notability has changed. So yes, it should have been created in draft space and then an administrator could have moved it. But the process has nothing to do with whether it should be kept now. StAnselm (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. However, I'm not aware of any disrespect I've shown towards Wikipedia's processes or decisions. If I've inadvertently done so, I sincerely apologize. Could you please provide more specific information about the decision you're referring to? I'm always eager to learn and improve my contributions to Wikipedia. If there's been a misunderstanding, I'd be happy to discuss it further and ensure we're aligned with community consensus moving forward. Delawaretallman (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That "you" was really directed more to Coincollector4500, and I (perhaps erroneously) guilted you by association. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I did provide some guidance to Coincollector4500, but I have no association with the article's creator. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention, as it's important to maintain transparency in Wikipedia collaborations. If there are concerns about the article's creation or maintenance, I'd be happy to discuss them further to ensure we're adhering to Wikipedia's policies and community decisions. Delawaretallman (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the subject now passes GNG. StAnselm (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only sources that get close to WP:GNG-qualifying are WCPO, KLove, and Spectrum News. The WCPO piece predates all the other AfD discussions and appears almost entirely based on an WP:INTERVIEW that doesn't appear to involve substantial journalistic work beyond the comments from Alma, making it a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. The new-ish KLove piece is highly promotional and one-sided, with language like Blake Alma's story is one of remarkable success and profound personal transformation.... his journey from a successful entrepreneur to a college student underscores the significance of aligning one's professional achievements with personal convictions. His narrative, enriched with personal reflections and aspirations, serves as an inspiration, highlighting the courage it takes to pursue a path that truly resonates with one's values and beliefs, even when it diverges from a successful, established route. This is transparently not an independent source, and again appears based solely on Alma's word, not original reporting. The same goes for the Spectrum News piece, it's based solely on Alma's words. The handful of Cincinnati Enquirer stories are likewise interview-based human interest pieces that function as primary sources since they're entirely based on Alma's words or videos. (Worth noting: the four Enquirer stories are not actually linked on the site of the publication or on ProQuest, but are copyright violations posted on a personal webhost service that coincidentally only includes these four articles and nothing else: https://cincinnatiarchives.tiiny.site/. I am deleting them from the article per WP:COPYLINK.). The rest of the links are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or press releases that don't support notability. Based on the non-independence of the sources used, I don't believe we have a WP:GNG pass here. The salting of the original article title was wise, and I agree with Pppery that additional permutations of this article title should be salted to avoid AfC evasion. Finally, this article was created a single-purpose account whose only other work was a draft for Alma's company CoinHub Media, so I strongly suspect we have a case of WP:UPE here as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You raise some valid points about the WCPO source - I agree it appears to be interview-based, and the unclear sourcing of the video content does make it less reliable as a provable independent source. However, I respectfully disagree about the K-love article. While it does contain some promotional-sounding language, this appears to be more a reflection of K-love established editorial style as a religous broadcasting network rather than a lack of independence. Klove is a national broadcasting network (operating over 400 stations) and should be a recognized secondary source. The religious perspective in their reporting shouldn't disqualify it as a reliable source. Regarding the Cincinnati Enquirer articles, that was a good catch and yes, you did a fine job of removing that. It appears a random IP address tried to fix the issue, presumably the article's creator. The Spectrum News piece, while containing interview footage, is reporting and verification of Alma's business operations, and is primary source material. I overall personally disagree with your assessment to delete but I do appreciate your viewpoint, and you've done excellent work catching the Cincinnati Enquirer citation issues and raising valid questions about the WCPO source. Delawaretallman (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, but the Spectrum News piece verifies things by quoting... Alma himself. There's no evidence of other sources for Alma's claims. And the KLove piece appears to be based on nothing more than... Alma's claims about himself. And there's no evidence that KLove is operating as a real news organization per WP:NEWSORG. It has no editorial staff listing on its site, and it has no public editorial policy or statements about fact-checking or corrections. Its news feed (https://www.klove.com/news) is mostly reprints of wire stories mixed in with WP:USERGENERATED content. And its mission is explicitly about creating positive and inspiring content (see its "Positive People" feed), which means its content will always be editorially positive and thus introduces questions about independence and reliability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear more assessment of the sources here and opinions on what should happen with this article and whether or no notability can be established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: after looking at them, only 3 of the sources are valid and not just passing mentions as Dclemens1971 stated. For WCPO per WP:RS "Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting" and that's basically all it is. It's just about "wow this kid discovered the outdoors (and A LOT of specifics about the journey) and runs a small (now defunct) podcast", nothing related to what he does today and doesn't show anything relating to NOTABILITY. The KLove and Spectrum articles are also human interest, and all they do is repeat what he said with little else. Parroting what he said, without analysis or contextualization, is a primary source. WP:BIO: "primary sources... do not [prove] notability". I also echo concerns raised by Dclemens1971 over the reliability of KLove as a legit WP:NEWSORG, I cannot find any evidence of editors, editorial policies or oversight.MolecularPilot 01:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt: Even in otherwise-reliable publications, you aren't going to meet the GNG with interviews alone (and I also question whether K-Love—which while a national radio network is more known for its Christian music programming than anything resembling journalism—even constitutes generally-RS for our purposes to start with). As to the UPE concerns mentioned earlier: there has been socking in relation to this topic in the past involving at least most of the previous creation attempts, for what that's worth. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & salt It's an interesting one. On the face of it, the sources look plenty. Take out the non-reliable sources (NY Post, Goodreads, social media) and the ones that are about numismatics rather than Alma, as well as the CoinHub ones of course, and you're still left with several. If we were merely counting the number of sources, GNG would be easily satisfied. Alas, they are all of the 'young person does business' type, the sort of stuff you might see as the 'kicker' ie. the final light piece in a local news bulletin. These often come about because either the subject, or someone close to them, is good at playing the media game and/or has the right contacts. And judging by the persistence with which this is being pushed into Wikipedia, I get the feeling we're very much part of that publicity campaign. For that reason, I'm also asking for salt, because otherwise I expect we shall meet here again before long. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scars to Prove It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - User:Bastun has nominated nine Remedy Drive albums for deletion, all with the same non-descriptive rationale copy/pasted into each: "Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV." (The first nomination has slightly different syntax.) There is no evidence that a WP:BEFORE search, specific to each album, was done before this mass copy/paste operation. Some of the album articles have citations to reliable sources in the Christian music media, though others could be redirected to the band's article. That's already more variable evidence then given in these mass nominations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply - not sure what you mean by "non-descriptive"? It's accurate. The albums have all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTAPOLICY. You should indicate why and how those policies were violated in the original nomination. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I literally did that? Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV is clear, unambiguous and identifies the policies breached. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems good enough. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(I spread pro-Weezer propaganda)} 13:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This AFD is depressing. Vague nominations combatted by vague stances. Come on, do better. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. There's a bit more on this one too. As I said on the nomination for Imago Amor, the reviews that are present are the usual weak/blog-esque Christian music sources, but it's an indication there is more coverage out there. Ss112 08:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imago Amor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The reviews that are present are the usual weak/blog-esque Christian music sources, but it's an indication there is more coverage out there. Ss112 08:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has multiple reviews in reliable sources already present in the article as determined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope's Not Giving Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Remedy Drive per nomination. Lacks significant coverage and isn't notable, like the majority of the band's albums. Ss112 07:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any additional support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Light Makes a Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Remedy Drive per nomination. Lacks significant coverage and isn't notable, like the majority of the band's albums. A lot of these articles seem to exist under the premise that Christian outlet Jesus Freak Hideout reviewing the release makes it notable—it doesn't. Ss112 07:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any additional support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't see the problem with Jesusfreakhideout.com; it has editorial supervision and looks like a reliable source for Christian music reviews --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magnify (Remedy Drive album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Remedy Drive per nomination. Lacks significant coverage and isn't notable, like the majority of the band's albums. A lot of these articles seem to exist under the premise that Christian outlet Jesus Freak Hideout reviewing the release makes it notable—it doesn't. Ss112 07:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any additional support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Okonkwo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An article about a "family life and relationship coach, TV personality, and author" sourced entirely to shady pieces. While most of the publications are reliable on their own, the pieces sourced to are either unreliable, of the subject's opinion, run of the mill coverages or vanispamcruft. It's either the subject is publishing their opinion or it's an unreliable "things you need to know about X" piece. Nothing to confer inherent notability here either. Fails WP:GNG over all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The subject appears notable and subject of discussion in national dailies here, here and could pass [Wp:GNG|GNG] with wide coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackesan (talk • contribs) 12:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lorgius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged uncited for years and I could not find much in Google Scolar Chidgk1 (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. People venerated as saints by major churches are clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This pre-Vatican martyr never came through a formal Canonization process. All the the sources about him are literally a word or two. I’m not even sure if he really existed. There’s no evidence of a cultus. Bearian (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's quite probable he didn't exist, but that's not unusual for early Christian saints, few of whom ever went through a formal canonisation process. It's whether he's venerated that's significant, and he clearly is, even if not that commonly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Lorgius (Lorgio in Italian, or "San Lorgio" which works as a search term for him) is certainly a venerated saint, with churches named after him. Multiple sources exist supporting this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge what limited content we have to Martyrs of Caesarea. While it does appear that there is some veneration of him, I can't find any records of churches named after him. He receives a single mention in the index of Basil Watkins' encyclopedia of saints and he and the other Caesarea martyrs receive a single mention in Aeterna Press's book of saints, which says "Little to nothing is known of these saints, and even their names are uncertain." There's no WP:SIGCOV of this saint to meet WP:GNG, but redirecting is a reasonable alternative to deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Martyrs of Caesarea per Dclemens1971. He is verifiable as venerated saint (if not as an historical figure) but there is so little info that a sentence in the broader article is all that's really appropriate. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect as above - saints of major churches are notable. Ingratis (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vahanas used in Goan temples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No sign this article isn't just WP:SYNTH. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Goa. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:LIST - it’s just a random list of things in other things, without any verifiable references, and without even trying to tie any of the things in other things into any coherent thing. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Labbaik TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. I failed to verify if the channel is still active and there is no coverage about it. Gheus (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I can’t find any sources to support it, so extremely unlikely to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Islam, and Pakistan. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of television channels in Pakistan: and add ref to Pakistan's Political Labyrinths: Military, Society and Terror(2015). (Taylor & Francis), or https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/pakistan-labaik-tv-channels-broadcast-stopped20220907013539 for example. Or Keep, if other users think the existing coverage is sufficient. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agreed as per nom. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamophobic incidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since I nominated List of antisemitic incidents in the United States I should nominate this too, since it has the exact same problems.

Extremely, extremely broad and vague scope, with barely any quality control. Making this list anywhere close to comprehensive coverage of its baffling scope would be impossible, and would mostly contain low level news stories (as it does). If this was going to be a selection of notable pages (and changing it to that would require deleting 99% of the list) maybe, but the problem is in the title still: "Incident". Incident is so broad as to be useless, it can be anywhere from a terrorist attack to someone calling someone a mean word on the bus, this is a completely un manageable scope. Anti-Muslim terror acts or hate crimes targeted at mosques would likely meet NLIST, and if there is consensus to rescope to that we can, but that would also require nuking most of the page. Also, weasel words: "could be considered Islamophobic"? What? Also has WP:BLPCRIME concerns in that it accuses people of crimes without convictions. It also has WP:NOTNEWS issues, which is not inherently a problem for a list, but is a problem when it's based on an inherently POV and negative concept and one with a scope as vague and with as many possible entries as "incident" PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Islam, and Lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: The list should be rescoped to only contain notable events with broad coverage. It may also be viable to rename it to something like "List of Islamophobic terror attacks" or "List of Islamophobic hate crimes", depending on the new scope. I don't think outright deleting the page would be productive. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: I don't know why you are doing this. But this list is super-duper notable. Lots of references are added to the article. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability for lists is not predicated off of how many citations are referencing the individual items. If the concept of the list is not manageable or is not notable then it can be deleted. There is no way to have this article in a manner that does not violate WP:What Wikipedia is not PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or rescope to only focus on notable incidents agree with nom that this is not a managable list in its current form due to the volume of coverage of incidents. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nearly all of these incidents are non-notable. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draftify - WP:SALAT indicates list articles should not be overly broad. This article probably could exist if the subsections were there own articles with relevant and useful selection criteria. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uşşaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged uncited for years but hard to find sources as apparently not the same as https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/U%C5%9F%C5%9Faki_Tarikat%C4%B1 The source on the Turkish article seems like it might be a wiki or somesuch so perhaps not reliable? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, Iraq, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I see various books in English covering this significantly; also two reliable references on the corresponding article in French. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mushy Yank What books in English please? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Added some to the page.

  By the way, you have currently opened 27 Afds regarding Turkey-related articles. It is an extremely (and in my view exceedingly) high number for one nominator, especially concerning one topic, and it happens to be very challenging for interested users to find sources and even !vote. I understand you take to Afds pages that are unsourced but, precisely, it takes a lot of time to find sources. At the very least, I am inviting you to kindly slow down your nominations; personally, I would even suggest that you stop further nominations until the present ones are closed. Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep plenty of Turkish sources found but as Mushy Yank says above it’s quite a task to plough through Turkish books online to update the article. Mccapra (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)

MeJew movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another AI-generated hoax by User:Jeaucques Quœure. #MeJew was a Sundance Film Festival panel and does not appear to be an actual movement or awareness campaign. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Judaism, Israel, and United States of America. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G3 as a blatant hoax insofar as the article as it exists attests a broad social movement that doesn't actually exist by misinterpreting the name of one Sundance panel. Jeaucques Quœure also created wikt:MeJew at Wiktionary. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete I found the Sundance source and a review of the panel discussion. There was a tweet about this from the Orthodox Jewish Public Affairs Council and it did appear in the Jewish Telegraph. But it's not enough for WP:GNG and outside of the panel discussion there isn't anything else about it. Dr vulpes (Talk) 07:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete lacking notability and possibly a hoax. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2023 Sundance Film Festival: sources on the page and plenty of independent coverage available online indicate that this is not a hoax and received some attention. Not opposed to Keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not a hoax! https://britishcinematographer.co.uk/2023-sundance-film-festival-announce-beyond-film-conversations/ https://www.indiewire.com/news/festivals/israel-representation-panel-palestinian-protest-sundance-same-time-1234944791/ https://jewinthecity.com/2023/01/jew-in-the-city-hosts-historic-panel-at-sundance-film-festival/ etc. (Jew in the City is another possible target for this in case it is redirected) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These sources all support what I wrote - #MeJew was a Sundance Film Festival panel and does not appear to be an actual movement or awareness campaign. Flounder fillet (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But you claimed it was a hoax and my! vote is for a merge. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Botswana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Extremely small minority with little significance, nearly half the article is about Botswana's relations with Israel because of how little coverage there is of the 21 members of this community. If this qualifies as notable you could make thousands of X ethnicity in Y country articles. Gazingo (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Judaism, and Botswana. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There could be 10 people or 5 people in this community and it wouldn't matter as long as reliable sources existed. The current size of the community is irrelevant. Jewish communities are almost always small in most countries. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources in the article are Jewish websites with articles for "Jews in X country" for every country. Are there any sources about Botswana Jews specifically outside of the context of listing facts about the Jewish communities in every country? Gazingo (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's a notable incident that isn't currently covered that seems worthwhile on my WP:BEFORE search.^[1] Andre🚐 23:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • Even though that's one source, note there's also a JTA article in the article. Andre🚐 01:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is Andre's source enough to keep this? Are there more?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Religion in Botswana#Judaism is a potential merge target if consensus is against retaining this article as is. Left guide (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bohemian Baltimore. Eladkarmel (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Religion in Botswana#Judaism - This is a very, very slim WP:GNG pass, on the basis of the Botswana Notes and Records and Jewish Telegraphic Agency articles. As an editorial matter, this content would be better covered at Religion in Botswana#Judaism, where it functionally is covered already. Suriname0 (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started reviewing the article to identify where sources are needed or missing. With some reorganisation, I believe this article does not warrant deletion. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Cambodia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Extremely small minority with little coverage, the article is largely about individual people in Cambodia who are Jewish with little suggestion of an actual community. If this is notable you could make thousands of articles about every ethnic group in every country. Gazingo (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Judaism, and Cambodia. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Gazingo: Your premise about the history of the Jews in any country, i.e. Jewish history, is wrong because Jews are ALWAYS a tiny minority compared to surrounding populations. For example, in the world today there are about seven billion people while there are only about 15 million Jews on planet Earth. Yet Jews are to be found everywhere and they always make WP:N contributions to their host nations regardless if they arrived there fifty years ago or five hundred years ago and regardless if they amount to 500 people or 500,000 people. Please note WP:DONOTDEMOLISH! IZAK (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE Agree with nominator. This is just a list of facts and a few people. As it is now, there isn't anything to indicate that there IS any history of Jews in Cambodia, i.e. no community per se.--FeralOink (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:SYNTH ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any history of Jews in Cambodia. It seems that Jews in Cambodia is a modern-times Chabad thing and not a historical diaspora community. Andre🚐 23:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC) I'm changing to Keep after the expansion of the article by IZAK. There are now enough sources that in my opinion do generate WP:SIGCOV. Andre🚐 22:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to Jews in Cambodia. We have Buddhism in Saudi Arabia, Catholic Church in the Maldives and Islam in Nicaragua, surely we can accommodate Jews in Cambodia. Srnec (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Srnec: There is no need to move this article because ALL such articles are written on WP as "History of the Jews in ____". It's fine as it is. IZAK (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That does seem a little WP:OSE to me. If I thought that suitable sources existed about Cambodian Jews I'd change my !vote. Andre🚐 07:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Here and here and here. Not every article has to be long. This is and will remain for the forseeable future a short article. That's fine. My main disagreement with the moderator is that "Jews" in the title are an ethnic group rather than a religious one. My point about other stuff is that it is pretty standard to have "world religion by country"-type articles, but there is no category corresponding to world religion for ethnic groups. I might support merging this article with History of the Jews in Laos into History of the Jews in Mainland Southeast Asia (or History of the Jews in Indochina) and having sections pointing to the more substantial main articles for Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia (per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE). What I oppose is outright deletion. Srnec (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The second source seems the most reliable to me and it directly states there isn't a Cambodian Jewish history and the Chabad mostly serves tourists. The first source seems to contradict this , but I'm inclined to doubt the reliability of a source that can't spell expatriate compared to an academic publication. Third third source is about an individual (who may or may not be notable), not a community. Gazingo (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  JVL was made unreliable WP:RSP but I wouldn't really mind using it for something like this, but it also basically says the Cambodian Jewish population is practically nonexistent, was 0.1% before Pol Pot and he went after religious minorities, and is just a Chabad in Phnom Penh. I agree, the 2nd source looks reliable, but literally says Cambodia does not have a “Jewish history”. The 3rd is about an interesting individual but is hardly Jewish history. The other stuff mentioned in the article - History of the Jews in Thailand, History of the Jews in Myanmar, absolutely should remain, but the redlink suggested for a merge target doesn't exist currently. I'm not opposed to a merge if a suitable target could be found. Andre🚐 04:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW I'm changing to keep after IZAK's addition of additional sources and content Andre🚐 22:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get some more discussion on the proposed merge as an ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for better or worse, this IS the history of the Jews in Cambodia. The article has WP:RS and it is WP:V as well as WP:N. Smallness of size is not a "sin" when it comes to the Jewish People as they are a small sized nationality out of the world's billions of people. IZAK (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have posted the following on the nominator's talk page: Hi, and welcome to WP. I have spent over twenty years gathering material to build up a comprehensive history of the Jews in all of the world's countries, see Category:Jewish history by country. Some countries are large and some are small. Some Jewish communities are likewise small or large or old and new, but still they are part of the Jewish history of those countries and of Jewish history and the Jews in general. See my response to your nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Cambodia: Your premise about the history of the Jews in any country, i.e. Jewish history, is wrong because Jews are ALWAYS a tiny minority compared to surrounding populations. For example, in the world today there are about seven billion people while there are only about 15 million Jews on planet Earth. Yet Jews are to be found everywhere and they always make WP:N contributions to their host nations regardless if they arrived there fifty years ago or five hundred years ago and regardless if they amount to 500 people or 500,000 people. Please note WP:DONOTDEMOLISH! Therefore, kindly withdraw your nomination because it interferes with the goal of building a comprehensive history of the Jews in all countries and nations on WP, no matter how large or small those Jewish communities are they are all part of the Jewish People who are a tiny, yet very much WP:N nationality and religious group in the world both historically and in the present! Thank you for your understanding! IZAK (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Religion in Cambodia#Judaism is a potential merge target if consensus is against retaining this article as is. Left guide (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The only issues are (1) whether there is significant coverage of the topic, and (2) whether a subject is either too big or too small for its own article. Clearly, there are at least three reliable sources with some essential information about the topic, so that is settled. The periodical articles about the Princess’s Bat Mitzvah, philanthropy, and diplomacy are all good references about the subject. At AfD, regardless of how many (quantitative), we lean on how good (qualitative) the data is. Sometimes we look deeper to see if there is zero connection between the data to see whether there was artificial synthesis. This matter is often subjective, and in my mind there’s not synthetic organization; there is a logical correlation between the individual parts of the article and the whole. That can be a difficult task. Secondly, we have struggled with subjects that are too small or big for our encyclopedia. On one hand, we are not a good place for news and other small incidents. On the other hand, we can’t deal with run of the mill items or lists that might include everything. What I’m saying is this: we have never decided on a defined, objective quantum of the smallest possible number of items or data that are needed for an stub to exist. Jews have been a discrete and insular minority in every country from 70 CE until 1948. What is our quantum or velleity? Do we need a minimum of 137 Irish in Uruguay? If we had an objective number for articles of this sort, History of Jews in X, perhaps a minyan? Bearian (talk)
• Delete. I would support this article if it had significant content, but it doesn't. Just look at it: a Chabad house (like almost every country), mention of two people not notable enough for their own articles (only one of them Cambodian), export of hair (nothing to do with Jews in Cambodia), and an American charity also not notable enough for their own article. Plus three sentences repeating stuff from Cambodia–Israel relations. There is nothing whatever about a community of Jews in Cambodia and only one(!!) Cambodian Jew is even mentioned. This is nowhere near enough for an article. It's a light-year from meeting GNG. Zero^talk 09:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zero0000 are you arguing that this is synthesis? Bearian (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zero0000: @Gazingo: @DesiMoore: I have to strongly disagree with all of you for the following reasons. (a) No one has ever said on WP that there has to be a "community" of Jews in a country for that country to have an article about the "History of the Jews in ____", because just having *Jews*, any number or any kind of Jews in a country qualifies for an article like the History of the Jews in Cambodia. (b) As long as there are reasonable WP:RS and it's WP:V to support an article it is enough to have a short article about a subject such as this. (c) This article is far better than a WP:STUB, and had it been a stub it would be a justified beginning to a good and interesting WP article. (d) This article is certainly WP:N because just as there is a short article about Jews in Cambodia on the Jewish Virtual Library there is no reason for WP now to cut off its nose to spite its face because it may lack a long history or a huge community. And by the way, the Jewish Virtual Library article clearly states that "the small Jewish community there consists of ex-patriots, NGO workers, travelers, hikers, and adventurers." (e) By your dismissive tone and words you are clearly displaying an attitude of WP:IDONTLIKEIT which as you know is NOT a reason to delete longstanding WP articles. (f) Jewish history also contains Modern Jewish historiography --> "which is the development of the Jewish historical narrative into the modern era" including into far-flung countries such as Cambodia that formerly had no known contact with Jews but in modern times has seen a significant influx of all kinds of Jews into it as this article clearly proves. IZAK (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IZAK, you are quite right that I don't like it. I don't like any articles on invented topics with negligible content. I wouldn't even have brought this article to AfD if I'd seen it; I would have PRODed it for speedy deletion as an obvious notability failure. The fact is, only one of the sources (the Chabad one) supports this being a notable subject. Zero^talk 11:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Zero0000: In fact the article was originally prodded [1] but an alert and smart editor deprodded [2] it seeing that it could lead to controversy. Let me try to see if I can improve the article. IZAK (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although the sources seem very good, there's little to suggest that this subject is enough for a standalone article. Per Zero, the content borders on incoherence and it's not of much use to potential users. DesiMoore (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DesiMoore: You make no sense! You do agree that this article has WP:RS and is therefore WP:V, and thus also qualifies for WP:N, then you allege that "it's not of much use to potential users" -- how do you know that? Are you privy to the amount of readers all over the world who rely on Wikipedia to learn about Jewish history in all the world's countries? Rather than poo-pooing this article you should be encouraging WP editors to be WP:BEBOLD and add new material even about subjects that may not interest you but are of value to lots of others out there on the world wide web! IZAK (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are credible reliable and verifiable sources already in the article that describe the topic and demonstrates that the notability standard is met. The significance of Jews and Jewish conversion in a country like Cambodia is notable, along with other topics adequately supported in the article. Alansohn (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Are there Jews there? Are there any reliable sources for their history? No reason to delete. Eladkarmel (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: I have upgraded the article by adding two new sections: Jews and Judaism in Cambodia and Comparison of the Jewish and Cambodian Holocausts. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]