Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahá'í consultation

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahá'í consultation[edit]

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

As a subject, not notable enough for its own article. Only two pages link here, and they are both Baha'i pages. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument could be made for 90% of the articles relating to the Bahá'í Faith. Few of the articles in that subject category utilize any resources beyond those found in polemic literature of the religion. Regards, A35821361 (talk)

Makes sense to delete to me, there isn't much literature expounding on what Baha'i Consultation is outside of primary sources as of yet. Personally I hope that changes in the future, but for now this could be a paragraph on another page. It also isn't a well written article currently. A35821361 do you have any thoughts about this article? penultimate_supper (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no obvious discussion involving guidelines so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 12:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd say a line or three could be added to Bahá'í teachings but as a whole yes this article should be deleted. Smkolins (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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