Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigerian Chrislam

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian Chrislam[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This practice does not occur anymore also it is very embarrassing to generalise this as the whole ethnic group that does it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taku234 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, Islam, and Nigeria. Skynxnex (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If 'embarrassing the subject' was legitimate grounds for deleting articles, we'd have a great many fewer. Since it isn't, we'll have to go by normal Wikipedia practice, and look at notability instead. The article seems adequately cited, and Google Scholar turns up a considerable number of sources, so deletion seems inappropriate, and this AfD seems misconceived. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Invalid deletion rationale. Finding good sourcing on this subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AndyTheGrump.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even if it doesn't occur anymore it is a notable historic phenomenon. Add to the article that it does not happen anymore instead Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing should be added to the article without a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the edit history of this article shows that IPV6 editor @2A00:23C8:941E:CD01:B8E2:BD4D:1349:ACD3 repeatedly blanked information on this page including adding a "does not occur anymore" comment (possible 3RR violation). Several minutes after the last revert, account @Taku234 was created. Neither has edited anywhere else in Wikipedia.

Agree with other editors there appears to be no valid deletion rationale. If this moves anywhere close to delete, I'll review further and vote. Oblivy (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Pbritti as this an invalid nomination Kaizenify (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2023 (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.