This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Religion. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Religion|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Religion. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Keep Google searches easily turn up hundreds of high-profile mentions. There are articles from Amnesty International, the UN, and various governments, and dozens of major newspapers that all mention him. Easily meets WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV criteria. For sects with that many media mentions, their founders and leaders would usually also be notable enough. There is also plenty of information about Hashem that would fit well into a standalone article. DjembeDrums (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not eligible for WP:PROD due to unresolved talk page discussion about notability; should be resolved. No independent, reliable sourcing to suggest a standalone page is necessary. Fails the WP:GNG. Goldsztajn (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Typically, I'd close this discussion as a Redirect as an ATD but there is no mention of this subject at the target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's evidently done commendable work, such as the VA program, but I can't find significant coverage of her, or reviews of her books in reliable sources, to meet WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. She's also worked with some notable people, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Filled to the brim with primary sources and not enough independent sources to sustain a biography; the single book review is not enough. Appearing on podcasts is not a criterion for notability. Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreed. Many prominent churches have Wikipedia pages like All Saints Episcopal Church (Pasadena, California) for example. This article is prominent because of the history referenced in several cited published works, and its latest rector who has had national and international impact in his ministry. Elijah1979 (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are specific claims, comments, or content that need to be updated with sources please indicate such and the article can be improved. Elijah1979 (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. A search for sources turns up only one instance of WP:SIGCOV, and it's in Episcopal News Service, which while reliable for facts is not independent and thus does not contribute to WP:GNG. Sources in the article are neither reliable nor independent. As for the comment above about All Saints Pasadena, that's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and All Saints Pasadena definitely meets GNG -- not all churches are the same). Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple references (already found on the article) are stating that he is claiming to be the current head of the FLDS church, I will hunt down some more sources. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been deleted and restored unilaterally by other editors due to debate over notability. While I believe the label is notable, I have not been able to find sourcing to support this assertion. Brining here to gain consensus on deletion or retention. glman (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Faila NORG. The article contains WP:OR and appears promotional. This was an AfD'd in 2020 that closed as non-consensus. The only vote to keep the article had a counterargument that wasn't addressed. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 04:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Given that there are some sources with definite SIGCOV in English plus a handful like this that provide partial coverage, I'm inclined towards keep. I'm not familiar with the local languages, but I'd hazard to guess that further RS SIGCOV exists. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be a number of reviews and coverage in French, until we can say otherwise I think we can assume that there is enough coverage outside the english language. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back No reliable, significant ones to my awareness. None found in a search of French media sources either. Every French source used here is a blog, or passing mention. Or has no independence from the Opus Dei, which obviously has a COI here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For context, the sources used inline are linking to the ones in the further reading. These sources are four interviews with blogs, all affiliated with Da Vinci Code conspiracies or the Opus Dei, and the brief La Libre mention. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There doesn't seem to be any coverage in French... I tried the title with "critique" or "revue critique"... you can get a thousand places to buy it, see where it's held in libraries... This was all I could find that even mentions it [2]... The subject of Ops Dei is mentioned here, but not specifically about the book [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b For future reference the word usually used for (well, some, typically academic reviews) book reviews in French is compte rendu. There is one review I found while searching that phrase but I think it's from an Opus Dei affiliated publication so questionable independence. Even if its not, it's only one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Started as a WP:POVFORK[5] and since then it has changed quite a bit but it never really improved. This article is not about her public image, which is overwhelmingly positive, (and not a notable topic which does not pass WP:GNG), it is about certain criticisms of her. For some reason the article got moved [6]. Criticism should be in the main article and this POVFORK should be removed. Polygnotus (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm COI on this because 1.) a family friend ran some of Mother Teresa's US PR stuff and 2.) Mother Teresa holds special, positive importance in a private element of my life. However, I'm of the opinion that this article, while possibly a bit OR-heavy, strikes me as generally neutral and notable. I can elaborate, but I feel my COI precludes me from seriously inserting myself any further here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: COI users are allowed to have an opinion (even those who disagree with me ). See WP:COIEDIT and WP:COIADVICE. Do you know any reliable sources that are about her public image and not her as a person? Do you think it is a good idea that all criticism was removed from the article about her and moved to this, far more obscure, article? And that, possibly as a result of the move from Criticism of... to Public image of..., the criticism got hidden even further down the page? Polygnotus (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your encouragement to discussion! Perusing JSTOR, I'm finding some pieces like this. Generally, they come from the late 1990s and are heaving on the sociology (not necessarily bad, especially in a subjective subject). I have objections over centering criticisms like Hitchens's on her biographical article—one of a few significant marks against his legacy—but generally agree that we need to exercise caution in any diminishment of sustained and impactful criticism. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting to see how some people are overly cautious with anything approaching COI while others... are not. ;-) Of course, the criticism comes not just from Hitchens. People like Aroup Chatterjee and Tariq Ali and Mihir Bose and even people who worked for her like Hemley Gonzalez and Susan Shields et cetera have famously criticized her work. There are a lot of very important people who said very positive things about her; let's be fair and balance that out with some of the criticism. MLK jr got a criticism section. You can probably write a criticism section for Ghandi. I am quoting myself, and when I wrote that the Mother Teresa article still had a criticism section. No matter what happens here, the criticism will return anyway. It never left, despite attempts to hide it. Polygnotus (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Critics say grossly inadequate medical care was given to the sick and dying. Syringes were reused without sterilisation, pain relief was non-existent or negligible, and conditions were unhygienic. Meanwhile, Mother Teresa spent much of her time travelling around the world in a private plane to meet political leaders. -- The Guardian. Polygnotus (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at WP:SIZESPLIT, over 9000 words means "Probably should be divided or trimmed". The main article currently got only 5000 words. I flipped it around. If it would be fair then that shouldn't matter, right? But it does cause it isn't.
Finally, how competent are the sisters at managing pain? On a short visit, I could not judge the power of the spiritual approach, but I was disturbed to learn the formulary includes no strong analgesics. Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Teresa's approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement. I know which I prefer.' Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet from 1990 to 1995. PMID: 7818649 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(94)92353-1 Polygnotus (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article was previously nominated for deletion on August 2023. The article's current title came as a result of that discussion. I was the one who removed the criticism section but I retained the criticism against her since it would be a violation of NPOV to remove it. You do not need such a section to include criticism about a person. The NPOV policy discourages such sections anyway. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to consider whether it is better to Delete this article or Merge some content back into the main article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the topic itself is notable, having found multiple academic sources attesting the notability of the subject's public image, such as in popular discourse or media culture. A selection of examples follow:
Daniel T. Kline, "Digital Hagiography: Princess Diana, Mother Teresa, and Medieval Women in Cyberspace", College Literature 28, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 92–117, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25112585
Gëzim Alpion, "Why Are Modern Spiritual Icons Absent in Celebrity Studies? The Role of Intermediaries in Enhancing Mother Teresa's Advocacy in India and Australia Prior to the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize", Celebrity Studies 11, no. 2 (2020): 221–236, https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2019.1567366
The difficulty, of course, is that the current version of the article is not based on this literature. Instead it's a mashup of some stuff about legacy like the sainthood plus specific criticisms. I suppose there might be a case the article warrants WP:TNT, since its content is so disconnected from the literature relevant to the article's purported topic per its title (Saint or Celebrity is cited once; the rest not at all) that it'd require substantial cleanup. I'm not presently making that case, but I'd be open to hearing it from another. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hydrangeans: Thank you, we could probably use those sources to write a section on the main article, and if there is really a lot of content that could get split. But the current article in its current form is not a good starting point to write such an article imo, so it seems like WP:TNT is the best option. Can we put those sources in a {{refideas}} template on the talkpage of the main article? Polygnotus (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This institution is unaccredited, and SCHOOLOUTCOMES#2 cannot apply. Thus, it needs to pass the stringent WP:NORG, which it does not — there is no significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a temple, poorly sourced, so that it is not clear whether the place meets our notability standard or not. There may be better sources in Malayalam so hopefully editors with a reading knowledge of that language can weigh in. Mccapra (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, after some research, I'm just finding out that 160 episodes were filmed with the actor "Swapnil Joshi" but then they were deleted and refilmed from episode 73, Tilak has also wiped some articles too just because they contained some footage. and while deleted by some user, It also did air on ZEE TV, it has many indecisive things, for exmaple some sources say it aired from '93 to '96 while others say it's aired from '93 to '96 but later shifted to DD1, some other say that it was aired in '99 on ZEE TV for the first time and some that it aired on DD2-Metro and shifted to ZEETV and/or DD, It's very hard to find truthful sources, as all talk about the same thing but say it differently. for say the example mentioned above. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two mentions that verify it exists is hardly enough to establish notability. If that were the case, pretty much every television show would be notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All articles talk about the same thing, just their matter is different, even with some or for say a lot of digging can be done but it results to the repetitive articles. Though for me deletion is not okay. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page has been up since 2009, and by now we all realize after quite some digging that no reliable sources with indepth significant coverage is to be found. Redirect is better than to keep. Right? RangersRus (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not worth entertaining a discussion when the first reference you supplied falls squarely under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Won't waste time looking at the rest as it seems to be a misunderstanding of what constitutes a reliable source. A redirect is acceptable as we can verify it exists, but nothing that shows it is notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I think, you're actually right. I think deletion would be ok, as there's no adequate source to find" - This is written as if you are. At least, it does agree there is no adequate sourcing so without it I am wondering your policy-based reasoning for keeping it. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about cast, I just corrected some errors, and if you're talking about the above para, It's common knowledge to know DD didn't stream it in '97 and hence it was handed to ZEE TV, and Sony & Star did stream it following 2001. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Common knowledge? I certainly didn't know about it. In Wikipedia we are allowed to state the obvious (e.g., the sky is blue), but what you added would be WP:OR at best. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure your assessment is completely correct. Taking just one example, source 5 offers very significant coverage beside an interview, in a bylined article in a very reliable newspaper. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)07:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sourve 5 says "Krishna made Swapnil Joshi a star overnight; co-director Moti Sagar talks about the TV show." This source is not independent of the claim by the makers themselves. Source needs to be completely secondary independent. RangersRus (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot make it any more clearer than what the journalist himself said on the top of his article about the maker talking about the show and anything that journalist wrote in that article is the outcome of the interview. It is not an indepedent source at all. I am leaving at that. RangersRus (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following parts can be attributed Kavita Awaasthi, journalist for The Hindustan Times, based on her interview with Sagar; the media outlet being considered generally reliable, they can be used to verify a number of facts that contribute to the notability of the program, such as, at least:
After making the successful TV show Ramayan, producer Ramanand Sagar wanted to tap into another epic show — the Bhagavat Puran. Produced by Ramanand, Subhash Sagar and Prem Sagar, and directed by Ramanand, Anand Sagar and Moti Sagar, Shri Krishna was one of the biggest grossers for Doordarshan during the seven years it was on air. The national broadcaster had a limit on the number of episodes it could air in the ’80s, but the ’90s brought about a change in these rules. A producer could now make a show for a longer duration.
Music composer Ravindra Jain composed the music for this serial. The title song, ‘Shree Krishna Govind Hare Murari’, became popular in India and abroad. The show ran for more than seven years, and had over 200 episodes. The show covered Krishna’s life, from his birth to the time of his grandchildren.
The show was shot in Gujarat’s Umbergaon and Vadodara, where they put up huge sets.
Swapnil had a huge fan following because of the show. People thought he was Krishna.
This, in my opinion, in a 2016 article about a 1993 program, can be given a certain credit and at least contributes to the apparent notability of the show (that had, as I am sure you have noticed, 221 episodes and originally aired during 6 years.....) and I think that the material, if the page was redirected, would be lost, which would be detrimental to the encyclopaedia. (And that's just one source). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)16:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
omg finally for goodness' sake someone mentions this, I'm not trying to be rude but why can't someone just read the sources and watch the show for 2 whole minutes to get some fruit out of it. GOD! (replied to mushy yank)Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for additional and more thorough source analysis. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your first two links are single-paragraph WP:ROUTINE news stories that do not provide WP:SIGCOV. Your third link is dead, but the archived version shows it is a commemorative anniversary book published by the subject of the article and thus not independent. None of these sources get to GNG, and the School page you linked is a non-binding essay. The actual policy, WP:NSCHOOL, requires schools to meet WP:GNG, WP:NORG, or both, and so far there are no sources that contribute to either guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are very poor with no indepth significant coverage. Sources are more about the school activities in sanitation, math fair, science fair and such. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am relatively new to wiki-editting, but happy to make any proper edits to avoid deletion. Just message me with some guided assistance and I will be happy to make changes. StepToMyLeft123 (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Atidna (following AfD discussion). The article does read a bit WP:PROMO on the organization and could be trimmed, and coverage on Kahlenberg is in the context of coverage about Atidna. There's enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG nonetheless. Longhornsg (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a bundle of WP:SYNTH and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH to conjure an encyclopedic topic that otherwise fails WP:GNG. In his comment removing the OR maintenance tag, the page creator is technically correct that everything is cited, but there is not one source that provides an overview connecting these incidents and covering antisemitism in Kemp Mill as a combined topic. Instead, the page creator has created a WP:COATRACK on which to hang a series of events over a 35-year period with no reliable sources to connect them except this article. As a result, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some odd mix of trivia, things in 1989. Then nothing until the 2020s... You can pick any two dates and random and find things that happen, this is hardly a pattern. 1989, then nothing, then 2022 going forward. I don't see the need for this... The 90s, 2000s and 2010s were totally fine, with no events happening? Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - while some things are cited well, others don’t seem to match the claims being made, and there’s definitely some synth going on. It’s one of those ones where I think it MIGHT be possible to salvage an article out of this, but 1/ It’s not really a list - it’s a series of assertions, and 2/ I’m 50/50 whether it manages to hit sufficient notability as a not list, but as a “list” it fails the cut. If creator or anyone else sits down between now and decision time, and actually edits it into a coherent whole as an article, I might change my vote to weak keep / keep, but as a list, no. Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is classic WP:SYNTH. I searched for secondary sources connecting or grouping these events together in an overview-level historical manner (even a timeline at a minimum), and came up empty. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG by any stretch of the imagination. Left guide (talk) 06:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KM Panikkar is the only reliable source presented here. Autar Singh Sandhu is not a reliable source as there is only one book that can be traced to him which was written in 1935; there are zero mentions of his educational credentials, bibliography, or reviews of scholarly work available, and he was deprecated by an admin in the RSN-[13]. The link to GULAB SINGH (1792-1857) is broken. Panikkar does make some mention of this battle (in page 15 and 16), but the information is not sufficient enough to warrant an article.
Note: Two Sikh nationalist sockmasters have been undermining my AFDs, one is the Truthfindervert, the second is an unrelenting sockmaster who has been stalking me for 3 years now-HaughtonBrit. His two most recent sockpuppets, Alvin1783 and Festivalfalcon873 were sabotaging my AFDs and making multiple votes in AFDs to retain articles which aggrandized their religion. Even after their blocks, HaughtonBrit has been continuing his campaign against me-here he deleted my PROD; 2 admins have said that this was clearly HaughtonBrit block evading-[14] and [15]. Even after that, he didn't stop and made an illegitimate vote in my AFD-[16]. Please be weary of any suspicious new/burner accounts or proxies who vote here as they are almost certainly going to be HaughtonBrit. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
). See WP:COIEDIT and WP:COIADVICE. Do you know any reliable sources that are about her public image and not her as a person? Do you think it is a good idea that all criticism was removed from the article about her and moved to this, far more obscure, article? And that, possibly as a result of the move from Criticism of... to Public image of..., the criticism got hidden even further down the page? Polygnotus (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
