Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion

Shortcuts

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.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Religion

Lonergan Institute

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

No refs on the page for many years. As an ATD it could be merged with Boston College but currently it is not mentioned on the target page and there's little indication as to the importance of a RD (in fact it appears that there is an institute with a very similar name at a different university so a RD could be confusing). JMWt (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Religion, and Massachusetts. JMWt (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Research centers at Boston College. Doesn't meet GNG, but the list seems like a reasonable target. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Golovanov

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

Lack of notability. I looked for sources in both Russian and English and was unable to find anything about this person specifically, and the page has been tagged as lacking sources for two years. Jaguarnik (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Russia. Jaguarnik (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rather common name that comes up with many individuals, none appear to be a religious figure... Article now is sourced to primary sources. I don't see notability, this appears rather to be a CV. Lack of sourcing and unclear notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Gertoux

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

I accepted this at AFC after requesting the create protection was lifted in mainspace. I now have strong doubts that Gertoux has anything other than faux-notability, and believe that I was in error.
I have subsequently, with consensus, removed undue weight from thge article. However, I am struggling to check and verify references in the detail required. At AFC I needed simply to accept based on what I believed was a greater than 50% probability of surviving an immediate deletion process. It has done that - there was no immediate deletion process.
Now I am looking in greater detail I have found that it has an impenetrable referencing scheme, which often links in a tortuous manner to Gertoux's own works. Quotations in the references often do not match the alleged fact that is cited. Some I have removed. However, when studied in detail, each references appears susceptible to challenge in some manner.
My conclusion is that this is a WP:SOAPBOX and a WP:COATRACK for the ideas and concepts attributed to Gertoux. Furthermore that he fails WP:BIO, WP:NPROF, and WP:GNG.
If deleted it should again be salted 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Religion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His only claim to fame is not finishing his PhD, and accusing his professors of the "great French academic conspiracy against fundamentalism". The reason for not allowing him to continue his PhD wasn't his religious affiliation, but his insistence to peddle WP:FRINGE fundamentalist claims in his dissertation. Because which church he attends in his leisure time is not relevant to getting a PhD. Belonging to a tiny religious movement could be frowned upon, but it is ultimately a private matter which does not concern writing a dissertation. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, being personally a fundamentalist does not concern the university: that's what he is during his leisure time. Writing a fundamentalist dissertation does concern the university. MIVILUDES is more of an organized whistleblower than an organization exercising political or juridical power. E.g. when I was a Christian fundamentalist I managed to get a BSc from the University of Amsterdam, which is considered a bastion of atheism by many. When a professor wrote to him that he is a fundamentalist, the professor meant that his dissertation is fundamentalist. Otherwise, French professors don't tell him which church he should attend. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the notability of the article subject is essentially a coatrack for endorsing the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton preferred by Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 Talk 03:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gérard Gertoux (3rd nomination).--Jeffro77 Talk 05:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeffro77 I am grateful. I was unable to see the prior article(s) when I reviewed this since I do not have admin goggles. While they might or might not have changed my acceptance they would have meant that I would have made an even more detailed study than I did. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion of theological orthophony

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

Comment on JWs coatrack presumption: Since the 19th century, Bible Students have used the form Jehovah in their worship and in general in their movement, and since 1931 they have been using the name Jehovah's Witnesses for their denomination for almost a century, I do not believe that they need Gertoux's support to justify the inclusion and use of the term Jehovah, or that they are interested in it because I typed in the web search engine and found that the JWs cite George Wesley Buchanan, Everett Fox,[1] and dozens, but never Gertoux. Regarding pronunciation, JWs have always affirmed:

that the form Yahweh is the form most accepted by scholars
that there are other pronunciations such as Iao (i.e. 4Q120) or Yaho, and others, and it is not possible to know the original pronunciation
that they use Jehovah because it is well known and familiar
that it is possible to use the pronunciation of an individual's choice
JWs use both Jehovah and Yahwen in their publications

Even Gertoux claims that he limits the Yehowah pronunciation only to the 1st century CE,[2] because going further back is a mythical rather than a scientific quest. So can Gertoux give support to the JWs, to use the pronunciation proposed by him, when the JWs do not need it? Reference has been made to soapbox and coatrack, which is not clearly what this is about, or, how to prove that it is? Although there is no clear relationship in the coatrack and soapbox, I can well think that researchers who have also attracted attention in these contexts are relevant, JWs are a fairly large community. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that JWs have been using the form Jehovah for a long time has no bearing on an attempt to make their (and similar groups') views appear more legitimate by a purportedly independent scholar presenting that view as 'mainstream'. The assertion that "JWs use both Jehovah and Yahwen [sic] in their publications" is intentionally misleading, and they actually only use Yahweh in their literature when quoting other sources or suggesting that the form Yahweh is inferior to the form Jehovah. (The denomination's Watchtower Library uses Yahweh a total of 732 times compared to Jehovah appearing 360,095 times.) See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Gerard Gertoux.--Jeffro77 Talk 12:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding to: "is intentionally misleading, and they actually only use Yahweh in their literature when quoting other sources or suggesting that the form Yahweh is inferior to the form Jehovah", this it is not true [3]. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though this is straying outside the point, the objection is also wrong. The 1 January 1982 issue of The Watchtower referenced above (on page 9) quotes The Illustrated Bible Dictionary (which uses Yahweh), and then alludes to that quoted form again (the only times Yahweh appears in that issue) before suggesting Jehovah as the preferred alternative on that page and then in more detail on page 14. That issue of the magazine uses the form Jehovah 83 times. This also goes to the reliability of the editor cherry-picking sources to push the narrative about the 'correct' pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More irrelevant material on the rejected thesis

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

Comment on the doctoral thesis rejected: it is interesting that his doctoral supervisor worked for 3 years and developed the thesis for the defense. The other reporters had also accepted it. At the last moment Gertoux changed his thesis, only to have it rejected? Then his next doctoral supervisor and again the same reporters who already knew the thesis would accept it again for transfer, and then tell him that they could not accept it? Obviously the rejection was not because of its content. Anyone in France knows about the treatment of minority groups. On the other hand, people with no doctorate, no master's degree or even no bachelor's degree have become top academics: Freeman Dyson, Louis Smullin, Walter Russell Mead, Andrew Casson, William Gillan Waddell, Jack Edmonds, John Strugnell, etc. so a rejected dissertation would not be an obstacle to the existence of a WP article. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can unfortunately not build upon your personal opinions about the topic, or what you "obviously" find to be true, only on opinions and analysis presented in reliable, secondary sources. Therefore, please provide such sources. Geschichte (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Gertoux's book The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is Pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah. It Story has been included among the references of articles in The Encyclopedia of Christianity, the Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity and the Μεγάλη Ορθόδοξη Χριστιανική Εγυκλοπαίδεια (ΜΟΧΕ). Some reviews of two Gertoux's books:
- Winedt, Marlon (2004). Lind, Sarah (ed.). "Biblical Studies § OT § Gérard Gertoux. 2002. The Name of God Y.EH.OW.AH Which is Pronounced as It is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah: Its Story. University Press of America. Translated from the French Un historique du nom divin. Un Nom Encens (L'Harmattan, 1999)". TIC Talk. Newsletter of the United Bible Societies Translation Information Clearinghouse. 57. United Bible Societies.
- Lee, Won W. (2003-10-09). "Notes on Recent Publications § The Name of God Y.EH.OW.AH Which is Pronounced as It Is Written I_EH_OU_AH. by Gerard Gertoux". Religious Studies Review. 29 (3): 267–316. doi:10.1111/j.1748-0922.2003.tb00391.x. ISSN 0319-485X. OCLC 909876699.
- Gee, John (June 2004). "Gertoux, Gérard. The Name of God Y.EH.OW.AH Which is Pronounced as It Is Written I_EH_OU_AH. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2002. Pp. 328. Paper. $47.00. ISBN 0761822046". Review of Biblical Literature. Society of Biblical Literature. ISSN 1099-0321.
- Sion, Brigitte (2000-04-07). "Un historique du nom divin: un nom encens, par Gérard Gertoux (1999)". Revue Juive de Genève. LouvreBible: 24.
- "7789 Gertoux, Gérard. Un historique du nom divin : Un nom encens / Gérard Gertoux. Paris : L'Harmattan, 2001, c1999. - 222p. : ill., facsims., 22cm. ISBN 273840616". קרית ספר: רבעון לביבליוגרפיה של בית הספרים הלאומי והאוניברסיטאי בירושלים. 71 (3–4). Jerusalem: בית הספרים הלאומי והאוניברסיטאי בירושלים: 705. 2001.

One version of The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is Pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah. It Story is stored in 130 libraries according to Worldcat. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic speculation re an editor's identity

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

Comment - Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk · contribs) has been at this for many years, and first started editing in June 2011 after Seeker02421 (talk · contribs) was blocked in March of the same year. ~~It is likely that they are the same person~~.--Jeffro77 Talk 12:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem argument. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not ad hominem at all. Block evasion is a breach of policy.--Jeffro77 Talk 06:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On examination of the two editing styles, it is more likely that this was a form of collusion rather than one person evading a block.--Jeffro77 Talk 21:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The substantial amount of extraneous comment about some mythical being named (probably) Jehovah is not germane to this discussion and distracts and detracts from the pure policy based discussion on whether Gerard Gertoux ought to be kept of deleted. It is pure blether, dancing very close to bludgeoning. This discussion is not about a mythical being. It is about the deletion or retention of the article. Since I am the nominator I do not feel I ought to be the one to collapse it. "Soneone else" should be, after mature reflection. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I am unfamiliar with studies of the Tetragrammaton, nor biblical studies in general, judging by WP:PROF...

Gertoux does not appear to be or have been a fellow of a major scholarly society with a prestige comparable to the Royal Society, nor has he ever assumed the highest-level office of a scholarly journal or a major institution of research.
In other words, if Gertoux's most notable work, which this article seems to suggest was the proposal of an alternative theory of the ancient vocalization of the Tetragrammaton, has not had a significant impact on related fields of studies or outside of academia, then this article should be deleted & salted per WP:NACADEMIC.
While I have little knowledge on the subject to determine whether the scholarly sources citied are sufficient enough to invoke criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC, I would like to note that the wiki pages of at least four cited academics: Pierre Villard, Claude Obsomer, Thomas Römer, Max Reisel, were all created by @Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco. Again, I am not arguing that these articles are WP:COATRACKs; they may very well meet WP:GNG independently of Gertoux.

00101984hjw (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Draft:Presence of Tetragrammaton in the Septuagint also appears to be a soapy one-sided piece about use of the Tetragrammaton. The page draws significantly on the opinions of Frank E. Shaw. No points for guessing who wrote the article for him.--Jeffro77 Talk 04:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Gertoux has had a remarkable influence for his Tetragramaton studies in the academy, as commented on by many scholars in independent and secondary, or even tertiary sources in an encyclopedia (not if it is necessary to bring an avalanche of citations and comments to his work, but there are some on the discussion page Talk:Gerard Gertoux#Requires editing#Scholars' opinions). I have read of only two who have written that they disagree with Gertoux Tetragrammaton's thesis (unfortunately one is self-published and the other person does not deepen his critique). In this sense Wikipedia:GNG is fulfilled. Gertoux does not object that only Yehowah is the ancient pronunciation, but rather that it was one of those used in the first century CE, among which there was probably also Yahweh and Yaho. Most scholars would not abandon the Yahweh form for Gertoux's argument, but agree that his study offers vision for research, and this has resulted in it being selected among reference works such as the encyclopedias mentioned above. D. N. Freedman said that Gertoux "probably solved the puzzle". Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes: Gertoux "has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a problem in their academic discipline".

As for the argument that the sources are not good, I advocate for Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Academics: "many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as 'academics' for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources". In any case, the alleged problem of the sources could perhaps be solved by reworking, or cutting the main text.

Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals: It is satisfied 1 for being recognized for his studies on the Tetragrammaton, it is satisfied 2 for "originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique", i.e. arguing that Yehowah was used in the 1st century, it is probably satisfied 3, for having 5 reviews (2 in French and 3 in English) of the same book, only in different language.

Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics: Gertoux is cited in Scopus, although he has no ID of his own, and his books are in 130 libraries according to WorldCat.

Although the sources claiming that Gertoux is a victim of discrimination are the human rights institutions (secondary sources and not Gertoux himself), I do not know if it applies Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In theology and church history, people do not have the same citation count as in fields like biology, medicine, physics, etc., because the density of publication in the field is so much lower, and there are many fewer than 1% as many journals and papers, and correspondingly few opportunities for even the most notable person to be cited. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the coatrack: on the discussion page of the Gertoux article, reasons were expressed as to why it was presumed to be a Coatrack. However, since the deletion nomination, the editors have worked hard on the article and it has undergone drastic changes to address the alleged problem. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It remains a coatrack. A great deal of the original fluff and clutter and other extraneous material has been torn down, it is true. That does not remove the rationale for the nomination. There is a point where answering every point in a discussion becomes WP:BLUDGEON. You have been told about this on your talk page by me, and by an uninvolved editor, albeit that they told you after you had made this additional comment. The is a request, here, to cease and desist, while recognising that you will plough your own furrow. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The closest approach to a notability claim made in all the above is that one book was recognized. That's not enough for WP:AUTHOR. (And the claim is not even very solid. The Religious Studies Review, for example, is a superficial notice.) No other relevant standard (WP:PROF or WP:GNG) is met either. Given the article's history, salt it. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like Timtrent, I initially also though that this can be salvaged as a short-ish biography on the grounds of WP:BASIC at least, but no. Not enough secondary coverage for a sensible encyclopedic biography.—Alalch E. 17:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per XOR'easter. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nations Cultures

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

I'm failing to find anything about this film in Reliable Sources and don't think It meets WP:NFILM. Of course this may just be a product of the generic name and it being an Iranian film, but the lack of inclusion in normally permissive databases (IMDB, etc.) or on fa.wiki, doesn't fill me with confidence. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Islam. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Iran. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing out there - even IMDb doesn't have this listed. There are roughly two or three possibilities for this. The first is that the film was released prior to the Internet being as widely available and archived, so any sources for this were either not put on the internet or are no longer easily found. The second is that the film was never released to the English speaking market and as such, any sources are in another language. If it was released when the internet wasn't as robust as it is now, then the mix of other language and late 90s, early 2000s internet issues would definitely keep sources from being found - Google doesn't always crawl those like it would an English language source. The third and also likely is that the film just isn't notable. As the nominator stated, the film isn't mentioned on the Persian/Farsi Wikipedia, so that is somewhat a nod in that direction. We'd really need someone fluent in Farsi to take a look and verify that there aren't any sources for this. I used Google Translate to give me a Farsi translation of the title (assuming that it was the same title in Farsi) and there aren't a ton of sources that came up. I'll see if I can find someone willing to do a search, just to be on the safe side. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some research on the listed Researcher/Script writer/Director/editor turns up a personal website on which he lists the series as running from 1994-1997, which may account for the lack of online sources as you say. He also seems to have adapted it into a book listed as being in English, but I can't figure out if it was also put out in Farsi. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The good news about not being able to find sources from the early 1990s is that a lot of stupid things Generation X did in our youth are not discoverable. The bad news is that a big chunk of history between the demise of small bookstores and the growth of Internet 2.0 is missing. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YC Newfoundland

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

An almost identical article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Conference (Christian) about a year ago, I can't find anything on the subject except blog posts and primary promotional material. It is a wonderful world (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Religion. It is a wonderful world (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article Traumnovelle (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: No evidence of notability as quick google news search and it qualifies for WP:G4 Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG given zero credible third party sources cited, nor found in a quick search. WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Would support speedy if an admin determines the content is identical to the previously deleted article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like the conference hasn't happened since before COVID-19 pandemic, and possibly the pandemic killed the conference permanently as it did so many other things. I did find a couple of articles on Christian bands playing at the conference in the Newfoundland Herald (now defunct); but they were really more about the bands and not the conference itself. I wouldn't be surprised if there is pre-internet era coverage of the conference in CCM Magazine, Guide Post, Christianity Today, and the Newfoundland Herald that could be used to re-create this article and which would prove the topic passes WP:GNG. However, without physical evidence in hand, I don't see the value in keeping the article at this time. It can always be recreated when/if someone with a passion for defunct Christian music festival/conference wants to dig up sources in Christian magazines (both extant and defunct) or in the archives of the Newfoundland Herald, or other local newspapers. That editor can always start from scratch.4meter4 (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerónimo Lluberas

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

There is insufficient information to support the subject of this article's notability. Even before I began culling this page of non-WP:RS sources, this article had no citations supporting much of the personal life and religious sections. As such, this subject does not meet the guidelines of sufficient coverage and verifiability. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Medicine. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Bands and musicians. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kotsko

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 7 years ago and closed with no consensus. Since then, there have been no secondary sources written that indicate this person's notability. While he is an author, his books aren't really notable either. Please discuss. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kotsko has not gained in relevance in the years since the first AfD; back then, some editors argued for keeping the article b/c its subject might become notable. It was a weird argument, and it hasn't panned out. Note how self-referential and promotional the references are. I count around 10 references to Kotsko's blog, e.g. him writing about himself. I suspect some serious lack of NPOV among the editors @Mothomsen03 and @Jtkingsley. Delete. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess, for the following reasons. (I have been called to this discussion due to having started the article in 2013, although in the meantime I've pretty much come around to "let's just not have any BLPs at all if we can help it". Anyway.) Kotsko is notable, if at all, for his writing. And indeed he has authored multiple books that meet the first criterion of WP:NBOOK, namely that they have been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Specifically: Awkwardness was reviewed in The New Inquiry and discussed in depth in Critical Studies in Television (Sage); Creepiness has been reviewed in Critical Inquiry (U of C) and analyzed in depth in Consumption Markets & Culture (T&F); The Prince of This World has reviewed in Theory & Event (JHU Press) and Philosophy in Review; Zizek and Theology has been reviewed in New Blackfriars (Cambridge University Press) and in the International Journal of Systematic Theology (Cambridge University Press); Neoliberalism's Demons has been reviewed in Political Theology (T&F) and is the subject of at least five pages of close examination in Maxwell Kennel's Postsecular History (Springer Nature); The Politics of Redemption has been the subject of reviews in Anglican Theological Review and Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology. (For most of these there are certainly more, but I'm stopping at two.) Now you may argue that notability is not transitive and therefore this significant coverage of Kotsko's various works does not constitute significant coverage of him for GNG purposes. That's a plausible argument and if it carries the day, we will presumably want to split the existing article into stubs on each of his individual books, and dabbify the page to point to those book-specific articles. Of course each of those new articles will need to have some information about the book's author, so we will have actually just multiplied our BLP and maintenance issues. And since notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page, and the resulting stubs are unlikely to be built into substantial articles in the near term, we will likely soon find that the reader and the project would be better served by merging these stubs into a single article on Adam Kotsko, as NBOOK itself suggests. Given that such an outcome leaves us back exactly where we started, WP:NOTBURO suggests that we should just keep the article now and save ourselves the hassle. -- Visviva (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews brought by Visviva (which I have AGF'd). Seems to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except none of the article is actually based on any of the book reviews mentioned, just citations of the subject's personal blog. 2404:4408:476B:4500:A5FF:76BD:1588:2591 (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject is notable then the article can be improved using the sources that have been brought. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that hasn't happened even since the first AfD in 2017 because the subject isn't actually notable (reviews in specialist journals carry very little weight, as noted in the previous AfD) and as a result no one cares to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. It just continues to exist for the subject's benefit, written by the subject and/or people close to them (i.e., at Shimer/North Central) using sources from the subject's personal blog and other completely unreliable citations. I predict that if the article passes this second AfD it will just be nominated again in the future when someone else notices that it is entirely based on unreliable sources. 2404:4408:476B:4500:E867:645B:3954:A301 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to improve it, though gutting articles during an active AfD is often disruptive to the process. I don't agree that reviews in specialist journals don't count, surely they are the best way of assessing reception in the specific field. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the subject of this article. I want to clarify that I have never touched it or asked anyone to edit it on my behalf. It is based on a page from a wiki for Shimer College, which was created without my knowledge or input, by an alum I have never met, who has no apparent familiarity with my writing. I agree that it is of very low quality, and if the community decides to delete it, I will understand. Adam Kotsko (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The "Theory and Event" and "Philosophy in Review" citations above are critical reviews of his book. The rest is gravy. We have enough to pass author notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have paged through all of the umpty-dozen revisions in the article history since the last AfD was closed in 2017. It does not appear that a cleanup tag (other than a sentence-level tag) was placed on the article at any point during that time. Even supposing that AfD was an appropriate way to address article quality issues (it isn't, not at all), if that's the actual concern then it's a little weird to go directly to AfD (again) without even asking for cleanup.
FWIW I do agree that the article has a WP:BLPSELFPUB #5 issue in its current state. That would seem best addressed through expansion -- but BLP is a serious matter and I am unlikely to be a participant in that work, so although I stand by the remainder of my comment I have stricken my "keep" above. -- Visviva (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection: draftify. Although there doesn't seem to be any serious question of article-worthiness, a BLPSELFPUB violation should not just hang out indefinitely in mainspace. The necessary expansion work can be done just as well in draftspace, if anyone is so inclined. -- Visviva (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No dispute that he passes NAUTHOR, draftification is pointless for any article that isn’t new. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say draftify. The article has potential, but leaving it out there the way it is now reflects poorly on the subject and Wikipedia. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we have a WP:AUTHOR pass by way of multiple reviews of multiple books. I have trimmed the article into a more acceptable state. XOR'easter (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religion Proposed deletions

Religion Templates

Atheism

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Buddhism

Nagasena Mahathera

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

Prefacing this by saying I cannot search except in English, I can't find any substantive content about this person. This book at least verifies the claim, but that's it, no further detail. Other sources I've found have also been trivial mentions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Buddhism, Bangladesh, and India. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the book does exist but mere existence isn't enough. My search revealed nothing substantial beyond a few trivial mentions so it fails BKCRIT.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Chanel Dsouza, I don't normally like to argue with people who are agreeing with me, but are you sure about your comment? This AfD is for a person, not a book... ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After careful review and extensive searches for supporting references, none were found to substantiate the content. Therefore, I am inclined to proceed with the information provided by the nominator, recognizing their contribution to this article. Baqi:) (talk) 07:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jannatulbaqi, err, continuing my trend of arguing with people who are agreeing with me, are you entirely certain about your comment as well? I have to admit I'm concerned to see you say you made "careful review and extensive searches" when two minutes before posting this comment you were declining two AfC drafts and accepting another. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How long could it really take to do a quick Google search? That’s exactly what I did. I simply searched the name on the search engine and found that there wasn't much of significance. In the end, I wrote that I agree with the nominator and will go along with them.

Additionally, a book published in 2015 mentioned: 'Mahathera Nagasena, believed to have been a historical figure, was sent to the kingdoms of Bactria as a Buddhist missionary during Menander's rule. Menander (known as Milinda in Buddhist traditions) was described as arrogant.' Thank you with Warm Regards! Baqi:) (talk) 08:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the nominator, in case that wasn't clear. Nevertheless, I feel obligated to point out when people make AfD comments that don't appear to be consistent with the circumstances. In your case, I am sorry, but I found it difficult to believe your initial statement that you made "careful review and extensive searches" given that two minutes prior you had been rapidly assessing AfC submissions. Had your initial comment been more honest about simply doing a "quick Google search", I wouldn't have called it out. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people often do the same, and I’ve noticed it too. But if you read the comments I’ve made, even in previous AFD, you’ll see that I am genuinely careful. or I’m glad that you paid close attention to my activity, and I also apologize if any of my statements caused you any hurt. Take care, thank you. Baqi:) (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page and from search, the subject, a figure in history does exist but no significant coverage can be found to pass notability. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - abbots and the equivalent leaders of monasteries are not automatically notable, and if nobody else can find reliable sources, then he is not notable. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanja Odland

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

Conatins no independent sourcing, and what I could find was a Dagens Nyheter interview, which is mostly about her school of Buddhism and contains scant info in Odland herself, and participation in a Sveriges Radio show on meditation practices in Sweden. Insufficient in-depth and independent coverage. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Buddhism, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edited article to include independent sourcing. Article meets criteria for inclusion of a biographical person based on:

- Coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject (Dagens Nyheter, Sveriges Radio).

- Notability based on contribution to the enduring historical record in the field of Zen buddhism. Allllllice (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allllllice is a major contributor to the article.

The article is a bit short, but includes links to articles about Buddhism (eg Philip Kapleau which mentions Odland under the lineage section) and some acceptable references. I'm sure there are other sources that could be included. I recommend that the article is retained. Manbooferie (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Miscellaneous

Christianity

Sergey Golovanov

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

Lack of notability. I looked for sources in both Russian and English and was unable to find anything about this person specifically, and the page has been tagged as lacking sources for two years. Jaguarnik (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Russia. Jaguarnik (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rather common name that comes up with many individuals, none appear to be a religious figure... Article now is sourced to primary sources. I don't see notability, this appears rather to be a CV. Lack of sourcing and unclear notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YC Newfoundland

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

An almost identical article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Conference (Christian) about a year ago, I can't find anything on the subject except blog posts and primary promotional material. It is a wonderful world (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Religion. It is a wonderful world (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article Traumnovelle (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: No evidence of notability as quick google news search and it qualifies for WP:G4 Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG given zero credible third party sources cited, nor found in a quick search. WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Would support speedy if an admin determines the content is identical to the previously deleted article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like the conference hasn't happened since before COVID-19 pandemic, and possibly the pandemic killed the conference permanently as it did so many other things. I did find a couple of articles on Christian bands playing at the conference in the Newfoundland Herald (now defunct); but they were really more about the bands and not the conference itself. I wouldn't be surprised if there is pre-internet era coverage of the conference in CCM Magazine, Guide Post, Christianity Today, and the Newfoundland Herald that could be used to re-create this article and which would prove the topic passes WP:GNG. However, without physical evidence in hand, I don't see the value in keeping the article at this time. It can always be recreated when/if someone with a passion for defunct Christian music festival/conference wants to dig up sources in Christian magazines (both extant and defunct) or in the archives of the Newfoundland Herald, or other local newspapers. That editor can always start from scratch.4meter4 (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wylie-Kellermann

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Christianity, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His books have been reviewed in major publications. He is also well known as an activist. See coverage in this article in the Guardian: No water for poor people: the nine Americans who risked jail to seek justice Thriley (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. (non-admin closure) JuniperChill (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nog's Vision

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

A draft that was moved into mainspace by its creator. One non-independent source in the article, and a WP:BEFORE returned little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Christianity. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nog's Vision doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. I cannot find any reviews of the book, just listings and brief mentions. Schazjmd (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a 1+ page review at Military Chaplains' Review Volume 104, p. 58-59. Any reason this is not a reliable source? The Google Books search has a number of hits from magazines which I think do reviews, like The Publishers Weekly Volume 209, but as there is no access, I cannot see if they actually do review this book. Does anyone have any kind of access? And there's a bit in Not the Same Old, Done-It-Before Youth Meetings, not sure how we see this as a reliable source, and I cannot see p. 88-89. P. 86-87 has plot summary and the one bit of reception of being "a wonderful storybook". Daranios (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios The review in the Military Chaplains' Review is certainly getting there; I assume there's some sort of editorial oversight. Of course, people can't assess sources they can't access. I'm always glad to be proven wrong when sources I can't access turn up proving something is notable. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios, good search, thank you! The Military Chaplains' Review is a good review. The Publishers Weekly result is merely a list of books that Paulist Press was offering a discount on. Not the Same Old is a guide for conducting youth meetings; it recaps Nog's Vision to discuss the question of the difference between a dream and a vision. I'm not confident that this meets the criteria but I'm open to hearing arguments that it does. Schazjmd (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The one good review above, plus [4]. This says it was reviewed in a publication called Luna Monthly in 1974 as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found the Luna Monthly review, it's not super long, but it is certainly evaluative. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the Luna Monthly review, PARAKANYAA. That's not enough yet for me to change to keep, as it is a non-notable fanzine. Schazjmd (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of a source has no impact on its reliability, or plenty of reliable academic journals are unusable. If you meant just in the context of zines, fair, but it actually does appear to be a notable publication as searching for it in some science fiction history sources showed some sigcov. No one has written an article yet. Zines are not always unreliable, they just must achieve some kind of reliable recognition, for example the albums project has tons of zines listed as reliable sources. It also involved several notable people.

With the Sci fi encyclopedia saying about this publication that it was "notable for its professionalism and its exceptionally thorough review coverage, for which it is a useful research tool. Reviews – some by Greg Bear – were often good", that counts for me. The fact that it was indexed in the sci fi book review index is also a sign that it had some level of acceptance in the wider scene. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Phew, the Luna Monthly surely provides a balance to positive other reviews. I believe the sources collected together fullfill WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Daranios (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the evidence that Luna Monthly is a reliable source is convincing so that with the Military Chaplains review there is a pass of WP:NBOOK in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the evidence presented at this AFD.4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2024 (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.

Jayson Sherlock

(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) The person doesn't pass the threshold for having their own article and despite having considered acceptable red ir or mrge target, there's not quite a right one. Graywalls (talk) 16:36, 6 November 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]

As the nominator, I'm open to redirect to Mortification (band) if there isn't a consensus to straight up delete, but I request it be DELETE and redirect so it doesn't get re-spawned into an article of its own single handedly by an editor down the road. Graywalls (talk) 14:42, 8 November 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]

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find anything else. HM mentioned back in 2008 that he doesn't do media appearances, so that one source might be all that there is.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:09, 27 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]
Keep. WP:MUSICBIO#6. Prominent member of Mortification, Paramaecium and Horde (only member). The later is an obvious merge target if people want to ignore the notability guidelines which seems to be the norm these days. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BANDMEMBER, he needs coverage about him specifically in order to be notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can actually read what BANDMEMBER says and not tell us porkies. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability. Every band Sherlock has been in is definitely notable, no question. But, and I was surprised at this, so far it appears there's one source, mentioned above, that is about him specifically rather than a band he's part of. Horde was a one-man-band in studio, true, but that's technically separate and any info about that would be duplicated between the band article and this article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So totally different to how you characterized it above. So let's look at what it actually says, "unless they have demonstrated individual notability" such as by being "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." which directly satisfies the relevant SNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's circular. You're saying that they're independently notable because of the bands that they're in and thus should have their own article, and so, because they should have their own article, they're notable apart from those bands.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mortification (band). He was in multiple bands, but the article on Mortification is the only one with any meaningful information on him and it seems to be his most prominent role, with a lot of the sources that discuss him mentioning that as his most notable aspect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose that redirect. There are pages of search results with RS coverage about his work in Horde. Horde also was comprised solely of Sherlock for the studio recording. There is plenty of information about him that could go into that article if it was developed more. Plus, there's also a lot of coverage of Revulsed. And that's not to mention his work in Paramaecium (~~which he was a member of longer than Mortification~~) and Deliverance. There's too many significant bands that could be the target of a redirect. If one was to be prioritized, Horde would be the most reasonable, imo, because it was a solo project.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about del for now, but just create redirect later or discuss it in one one of the target page? It's not like it takes more than a few secs to make a redirect. Graywalls (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But why delete. We have a verified passing of a notability guide, and if you choose to pretend that doesn't count we have a good alternative to deletion and no one has raised any pressing BLP issues there is no actual justification for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a verified passing of notability. SNG doesn't over-ride GNG expect for some VERY special cases such as with academic textbooks. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mortification (band). This is an extremely common outcome as an alternative to deleting where, as in this case, the person’s sources are terrible, but they did tour internationally in a band. His solo band projects might also have the same fate. Bearian (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would his solo project be redirected? I can get pages of results discussing Horde, including in multiple books. And that's the only solo project of his. I'd argue that it's equally a possible redirect target as Mortification.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my surprise, there's only a singular source, and at that an interview, about Sherlock himself. Plenty of coverage for his bands, including Horde. To my regret, then, I'm going to go with delete here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still not seeing a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mortification (band) as an ATD. As per the discussion above, this is really not very easy. Horde_(band) would be an alternative target for redirection and I'd argue a better one except for the current votes for Mortification, which at least ensures a solid result from this very fluid AfD more likely! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given this discussion about NBAND, I suggest that a decision be pending the result of that discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's more of a longer term target. Graywalls (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is not about a band. The discussion is about an individual. Geschichte (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SNG is for both bands and members of bands.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mortification. Per nom, the subject fails WP:GNG. Although he has been a member of notable bands, WP:INHERENTWEB comes into play. I think this is the best alternative to deleting the article altogether.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Sweden Yearly Meeting (via WP:PROD on 6 November 2024)

Categories for discussion

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

Miscellaneous

Hinduism

Sikhareswar Mandir, Baldiabandha, Dhenkanal, Odisha

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

Exists in draftspace as well. Totally unsourced, and a WP:BEFORE search failed. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Odisha. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Google News reveals nothing same goes with books and the article is written like an advert. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I Draftify this because of that. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Miscellaneous

Hinduism Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Islam

Nations Cultures

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

I'm failing to find anything about this film in Reliable Sources and don't think It meets WP:NFILM. Of course this may just be a product of the generic name and it being an Iranian film, but the lack of inclusion in normally permissive databases (IMDB, etc.) or on fa.wiki, doesn't fill me with confidence. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Islam. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Iran. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing out there - even IMDb doesn't have this listed. There are roughly two or three possibilities for this. The first is that the film was released prior to the Internet being as widely available and archived, so any sources for this were either not put on the internet or are no longer easily found. The second is that the film was never released to the English speaking market and as such, any sources are in another language. If it was released when the internet wasn't as robust as it is now, then the mix of other language and late 90s, early 2000s internet issues would definitely keep sources from being found - Google doesn't always crawl those like it would an English language source. The third and also likely is that the film just isn't notable. As the nominator stated, the film isn't mentioned on the Persian/Farsi Wikipedia, so that is somewhat a nod in that direction. We'd really need someone fluent in Farsi to take a look and verify that there aren't any sources for this. I used Google Translate to give me a Farsi translation of the title (assuming that it was the same title in Farsi) and there aren't a ton of sources that came up. I'll see if I can find someone willing to do a search, just to be on the safe side. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some research on the listed Researcher/Script writer/Director/editor turns up a personal website on which he lists the series as running from 1994-1997, which may account for the lack of online sources as you say. He also seems to have adapted it into a book listed as being in English, but I can't figure out if it was also put out in Farsi. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The good news about not being able to find sources from the early 1990s is that a lot of stupid things Generation X did in our youth are not discoverable. The bad news is that a big chunk of history between the demise of small bookstores and the growth of Internet 2.0 is missing. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan Islamic Relations Movement

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

Article about a very small political party that claims a few thousand members and has failed to get anyone elected to anything, securing 0.08% of the vote. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Islam, and Iraq. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft. Incomplete text, add more headlines, history, steps of the movement, UzbukUdash (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in draftifying an article on a non-notable topic, because no amount of editing will make it ready for mainspace. The issue isn’t the lack of headlines or detail. Quite the reverse - as it stands there is a lot of detail about a non-notable topic. Mccapra (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't get your pettyness, really. There is no clear rule on Wikipedia on the notability of political parties and there are literally countless examples of articles for parties of this extent on the encyclopedia, as I already argued on your talk page (but which you simply ignored; thanks for the "respectfulness" by the way). Anyways, if you can find a majority which supports the deletion of this article, I'd suggest making the text a subsection of the Kurdistan Islamic Movement, the party which the Kurdistan Islamic Relations Movement split from.--Ermanarich (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I responded politely to your message on my talk page. I just don't agree with you. Mccapra (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't address any of my points. There are no rules on Wikipedia about when a party is notable or not. And you didn't go after any of the other examples of parties that are as small as this one I showed you as an example to get them deleted either. So what really is your point here? -- Ermanarich (talk) 16:08, 5 November 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} 23:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AFD needs some more civil discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uşşaki

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

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

Judaism topics

Cultural Marxism (disambiguation)

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

This page only disambiguates between two articles which is easily dealt with by hatnotes on those articles. Other articles listed under see also have no relevance to the DAB and just pad the page out to make it look like it should exist. WP:ONEOTHER suggests that DAB page is not needed. TarnishedPath^talk 14:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure, there is an RFC occuring at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory#RfC: Cultural Marxism DAB discussing whether the hatnote at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory should be changed to redirect to this DAB page. TarnishedPath^talk 08:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 14:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No need for disambiguation between only two topics. Talk page discussions at the associated articles have repeatedly reached consensus that the term just needs to redirect to the primary topic (Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory) and those few that were looking for Marxist cultural analysis will find it via the hatnote. - MrOllie (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MrOllie and OP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That the keep votes appear based on sources espousing the conspiracy thoery, only shows that there should not be a disambiguation page. Peterson, Braverman, they might say "Cultural Marxism" but it has nothing to do with any real subject. They are espousing the conspiracy thoery. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a good faith attempt to mollify the people who kvetch about Cultural Marxism redirecting to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory but it won't work and we don't need to do that anyway. There is only one other definition so a hatnote is sufficient. The only thing this brings to the party is the See Also but I'm sure that the articles already cover that. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it "work" if the redirect redirected to this dab? I'm curious what you mean there. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that no change to content will stop the kvetching because the kvetching is an editor conduct issue not a content issue. Look at how it has spiralled out of control even on this very page. This happens wherever and whenever "Cultural Marxism" is mentioned. We need topic bans and page protections, not attempts to mollify those who improperly wish to hide the fact that the phrase "Cultural Marxism" refers to the conspiracy theory 95-99% of the time it is used. They will not be happy until Wikipedia supports their POV with no mention of the conspiracy theory at all. Sometimes compromise is a valid approach but not when it is a compromise between neutral coverage and POV pushing. I know it seems tempting to try to fob them off and stop the constant arguments but that's just the first step to the POV pushers gradually getting 100% of what they want, which is to legitimise the conspiracy theory and to promote it in wikivoice. They won't stop arguing until they get that or they are forced to stop. Of course, if there really was a need to disambiguate then we would have to do so, and all add the page to our watchlists to prevent it being wrecked periodically, but there really isn't. It just creates another opportunity for disruptive behaviour. The hatnote covers it. Let Occam's Razor apply. DanielRigal (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's employ the scientific method. We can use the dab page for a year and measure the amount of 'kvetching,' as you call it, before and after. I'm just being a bit facetious, but it would be interesting to see whether the amount of kvetching goes up or down. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are several senses in which the phrase 'Cultural Marxism' has been used. I created the disambiguation with the two I had found, but other senses can be included, and there are many citations for these.

To claim that the term has only been used in one sense is not logically coherent. To put it bluntly, if you are claiming that everyone who has used the phrase 'Cultural Marxism' is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, then you will need your own private suite in the libel courts!

The phrase has become recently uncommon, possibly because of the Wikipedia article. (It is not Wikipedia's task to be defining meanings rather than reporting them, but that is going to happen.) More concerning is if past uses, over the last fifty years or so, are judged by a definition issued later. We must recognise the ambiguity. Samuel Moyn traced usage back a hundred years.

(On Wikipedia it has been decided, for example, that 'Boston' primarily means the city in Massachusetts. You would not then assert that every written reference to the name over a twelve centuries is retrospectively by definition to an American city even when the author meant the town in Lincolnshire. Denying the multiple uses there have been of the term 'Cultural Marxism' is just as ludicrous.)

There are citations aplenty for variant meanings. One analysis is in Zubatiov's article in 2018. The Antisemitism Policy Trust agrees that the term is used by Antisemites, but also "It is often used, without antisemitic intention, to describe liberals, progressive movements and others.": a very different meaning.

Dennis Dworkin used the term in another sense in 1997 in his article 'Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies'.

The most popular writer using the term is Jordan Peterson; certainly no conspiracy theorist nor antisemite, who argues that the idea that cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory is "completely preposterous". Now, Dr Peterson is a psychologist not a political philosopher, and you can disagree with him, but his works have been seen by millions, and if he means it another way, that meaning is the way millions have received it.

A balanced popular article I have read was by Danny Stone (Chief Executive of Antisemitism Policy Trust) in the Jewish Chronicle in 2023: 'Is the term 'Cultural Marxism' really antisemitic?'. He concludes that it is used in that way, but also with innocuous meaning, and sometimes by Marxists themselves. It shows the ambiguity, that needs disambiguation.

The use of the term in conspiracy theories is well documented (many have referred to the Paternotte / Verloo De-democratization and the Politics of Knowledge: Unpacking the Cultural Marxism Narrative on that meaning, while on the other side, the Libertarian Brian Doherty in 2018 Don't Blame Karl Marx for 'Cultural Marxism' dismissed conspiracies and its even being Marxism, noting it the term to have been used as a synonym for Critical Theory (which can be described as a conspiracy theory: classes and races conspiring to oppress others? Really?)

Professor Jerôme Jamin is cited on the conspiracy theory page: the paper cited though argues that it is ambiguous: the summary states "It tries to locate and identify the exact moment the theory changed itself from a regular and well-known knowledge in the field of cultural studies towards a key element used in multiple books and articles to explain the so-called destruction of Western traditions and values." In short – there is a conspiracy theory, but it has also been a field of genuine academic study. Therefore that very citation contradicts the assertion it tries to prove.

Doherty's argument is persuasive; that much of the use of the term is as a demonising synonym for Critical Theory in which case Critical Theory should be added to the disambiguating list.

All this said, the page could do with a slew of citations for each usage of the term. Howard Alexander (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Jordan Peterson? Really? TarnishedPath^talk 23:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Peterson is using "Cultural Marxism" as it's described in the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article. Using him in a keep argument shows exactly why the disambiguation page should be deleted, as it is simply misleading. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be very careful of what you are saying: you seem to be implying that Dr Peterson subscribes to an antisemitic theory, which is not a wise move. I said that he is not political scientist. However he uses the term, and the sense in which he used the term is one heard by millions. It is not the conspiracy version, and certainly with no antisemitic implication. You may not like his work - I may not like his work, or I might - it does not matter, but language is defined by usage and not by professors. Howard Alexander (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of this has anything to do with the function of a disambiguation page, which is simply to navigate to extant Wikipedia articles. It's not a place to WP:COATRACK a bunch of stuff about alternate (that is, WP:FRINGE) definitions, especially not stuff that has been rejected by the community at other AfDs and RFCs. - MrOllie (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It simply has not been rejected. That is a misrepresentation of history. There have been plenty of people arguing that the lede and the article is contentious and it's been contentious for literally a decade. There is enough disagreement on the talk page and its archives (with plenty of sources) to show that this term is not solely a conspiratorial term. Seriously.

Based on the history of the page, a disambiguation page would at least prevent so much defacing of the lede and so much argument about the lede, because it would be clear that there is a distinction between the term 'Cultural Marxism' and the 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory'. As used pejoratively, cultural marxism clearly references Western Marxism, Marxist Cultural Analysis, the Frankfurt School, Postmodernism, Post Structuralism, Critical Theory and its offshoots.

These would all be appropriate topics to link to in the disambiguation page. I am a Leaf (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough disagreement on the talk page and its archives (with plenty of sources) to show that this term is not solely a conspiratorial term. Seriously.

The page has been greatly complained about in the talk page archives for Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory - that doesn't mean anything, and is true for most WP:Fringe conspiracy related articles.

ALL of the discussions were resolved as having no ACADEMIC MERIT.

Just because something has been complained about or discussed a lot, doesn't mean those complaints were well founded, let alone well sourced. They weren't. That's why you're complaining about complaints rather than presenting a well substantiated, well documented alternative usage. You are in fact, spraying out a whole list of "possible meanings" without any single one these claims having an academic source to back it... what's more you'd need more than just one source to say it's a notable school of thought, movement, or set ideology.

The fact remains cultural Marxism (lower case, upper case) is just two words together, and has been used sparingly to reference something to do with culture and Marxism. Never a set singular school, or well defined area or mode of academic investigation.

Sorry we can't edit Wikipedia just because people complain. We have to use the sources at hand, as per WP:RS. As I've said to others in this discussion. Please search the talk page archives at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory before trying to present any here. The page has been around and very stable for over a decade now - and that's because we've dealt with each complaint as it's come up. We've done so in line with Wikipedia's policies, and sourcing requirements. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you strike the implied legal threat. TarnishedPath^talk 00:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peterson does actually play on the borders of race science. He has blogged about the problem of Jewish Intelligence, and even does so under the well known anti-Semitic phrase "The Jewish Question". Of course, he does so playfully by using the phrase to reference their intelligence, rather than their extermination (as the Nazis used it).

He's also been tied to well funded pushes to normalize race science in academia, as per this article [5]. This is in part because of his strong affiliation with conservative think tanks [6]... and he has appeared on the podcast of the white supremacist, Stefan Molyneux. These are undeniable facts, which thus, present no legal risk, especially because they're just being stated on talk pages. Talk pages aren't as subject to WP:BLP as they're less likely to be litigated. So your reaction is unwarranted. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peterson wrote an open letter about the rise of antisemitism in left wing politics, here is the Jerusalem Post's reply[7] in which they point out his points are couched in antisemitic ideas and his misuse of concepts such as “Cultural Marxism.”.

So I have no worries that Dr Peterson subscribes to an antisemitic theory, as I'm just a private citizen and if Peterson has an issue with that idea he could go after larger fish. He has not, and the Jerusalem Post's article is hardly a outlier. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's examine all of your sources:

Zubatov - Zubatov is a non-notable author writing an opinion piece for Tablet_(magazine) which is a conservative Jewish magazine. He has no expertise in any relevant field of academia related to the term, and the publication has endorsed views similar to that of the conspiracy theory (eg. that "woke" leftists have taken over society and the media). So no, Wikipedia isn't going to use this as a reliable source on the matter. See WP:FRINGE. We don't use WP:FRINGE sources as if they're authorities on conspiracy theories, truth, and fiction.

Dennis Dworkin - had you looked at the FAQ on the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page, you'd see that on page 3, that book specifically states it's "the first of its kind" and is trying to start the classification of a movement under this title. That's not a good proof that the term is WP:Notable enough for a disambig page.

Is the term 'Cultural Marxism' really antisemitic? - that article which again is just an opinion piece responding to a conservative using the term in the conspiracy theory usage. It doesn't endorse any other usage as having prevalence, the closest it gets is claiming that some leftist use it as a badge of honour. That doesn't mean it's a notable school of thought worthy, large, or well defined enough for a disambig page. Sorry, this article supports the current status quo of not having one.

Reason Magazine - This website is either funded or part of the Cato institute isn't it? At any rate, it's another conservative publication, and another opinion piece. The author once again doesn't have any credentials in any related academic fields as far as I can tell. So once again it's a dud source. It also notes the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as the main usage, and doesn't offer anything substantive in any other direction.

Jerôme Jamin - the text you quote doesn't explicitly reference there being any movement under the term "cultural Marxism". No one has a well defined movement or group under that name. It's at best two words strung together.

In short, your 3 conservative opinion pieces with no credentials, are not enough to justify a disambig. Your 1 leftwing Jewish source (its self also an opinion piece) doesn't support your claims. Nor do your quotes from the one half-qualified academic in this grab bag of sources. Sorry, you have not proven the need for a disambiguation page using these sources... which are mostly conservative opinion pieces. Please search the talk page archives of Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory before you even consider trying again with more sources. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are on the topic of academic books, in addition to historian Dennis Dworkin’s 1997 book [8] mentioned earlier, there is also Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology, a 1981 book by sociologist Richard R. Weiner, which is available online for those interested in browsing it. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources may be useful in addressing the content or notability of either Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory or Marxist cultural analysis. In this circumstance the existence of any academic sources neither adds nor subtracts from the fact that the DAB page disambiguates between exactly two extant articles and therefore per WP:ONEOTHER the DAB page is not needed. Proponents of keeping the article would be better off spending their time improving the DAB page so that it disambiguates between more than two extant articles than arguing about academic sources. The fact that they haven't already suggests that there is no option to do so. TarnishedPath^talk 09:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weiner - To quote every description of Weiner's book there is online: "Weiner considers the work of theorists as diverse as Jurgen Habermas, Claus Offe, Alain Touraine, Anthony Giddens and Alvin Gouldner, many of whom fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement." - so no, this book doesn't define some definitive movement or school of thought. It specifically says that it's including thinkers "whom fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement" - so that's a no go. It wouldn't be acceptable elsewhere, so it's not acceptable here. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, Discrimination, Politics, and Judaism. TarnishedPath^talk 02:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be adding it to a sorting page for Conservatism. That would be an attempt at brigading the discussion. It's not a conservative topic, it's a conspiracy theory about LEFT WING academics... not RIGHT WING ones. But at any rate, I suggest any conservatives who come here to debate the point first check the talk page archives for Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as this is well trodden ground, and we've dealt with pretty much every source under the sun on this one. I suggest to them, and anyone else, to not waste their time playing the fool here. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Conservatism is listed in Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. I added deletion sorting for all WikiProjects listed in that article's talk where deletion sorting existed. But do please tell me more about policies which I'm well aware of. TarnishedPath^talk 06:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no reason to have a disambiguation page. The term "Cultural Marxism" almost exclusively references the conspiracy theory usage. RecardedByzantian (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That assertion is clearly contradicted by the very sources cited in support of it. Dismissing some sources because the authors are deemed 'conservative' is not something you should want to admit. Several sources who certainly are no conservative have still asserted that the term has been used in different ways. Howard Alexander (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are discussing the conspiracy theory, as shown by other references. Per the JP[9] misuse of concepts such as “Cultural Marxism.” -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (conditional). This AfD is premature. The disambiguation page was created only a few days ago, giving the community insufficient time to improve it. Additionally, no other articles link to the page, making it effectively invisible to readers, so there’s no reason to rush its deletion. Moreover, the AfD was initiated just hours after an RfC discussion on linking to the dab page began, which the nominator conveniently omits, raising concerns that this AfD may be an attempt to derail or shorten the RfC process. I urge the closing admin to either Keep the page or delay the decision until the RfC concludes, allowing the community time to evaluate the merits of the page and giving editors an opportunity to improve it. I will present my rationale for keeping the dab page in the RfC. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "conveniently omit" anything. Stating that there is an RFC occurring elsewhere is irrelevant and you have produced zero policy arguments. If the DAB page can be improved such that it disambiguates between more than two extant articles, the time that the AFD runs is more than sufficient time to do so. TarnishedPath^talk 08:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you edited the body of the AfD to include the RfC reference, which is a good thing. [10] Do you mind adding a timestamp or acknowledging it in some way so that my earlier comment doesn't seem out of context? Thanks 87.116.177.103 (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Just to clarify though I didn't "conveniently omit" it, as I didn't even think about it as it didn't strike me as being pertinent. I added it however after your comments because I didn't want to spend any time arguing about it. TarnishedPath^talk 09:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the basic premise is flawed, aso the disambiguation page can not be improved. It can only be made into a WP:COATRACK. RFCs are not the correct place to decide on whether a page should be kept, the correct process is this one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a long standing consensus not to have such a page, and there's ZERO academic evidence the term refers to anything but the conspiratorial usage.

Yes the two words "cultural Marxism" do appear from time to time within academia, or on book covers, but that's not the same as Wikipedia having multiple articles under that title. We don't. So the more you expand your disambig and try to rope in a wider and wider variety of articles, the more faulty your disambig will become.

You can't just rope a bunch of articles all with different names into a disambig because of some conservative conspiracy theory about "the woke left". You need ACADEMIC and LEFTWING sources. Not opinion pieces and right wing talking heads. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and unnecessary. DAB pages are for three or more related subjects, and this clearly fails that measure.

— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:D2D. This is the third scenario there where there is one primary topic and one other topic to be "linked directly using a hatnote" without a disambiguation page. The Boston example in the lengthy !vote to keep seems (to me) a good example of why the hatnote should point directly to the other topic rather than a disambiguation page. A reader could go from Boston to Boston (disambiguation) to any of the dozens of the links. With this page, a reader could go from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory to Cultural Marxism (disambiguation) and then only to Marxist cultural analysis, so it doesn't make sense to have that extra step at the disambiguation page. The stuff listed under "See also" like Cultural Bolshevism is covered in context and wiki-linked in the primary topic's page already. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've worked on many of the pages concerned for a long time, and have become convinced that editors of Marxist cultural analysis are planning on making the page a WP:coatrack for any number of Marxist theorists. The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School and many of the thinkers on that page, aren't Marxists. They're neomarxists - who were critical of Marxism, and wanted to be critical of BOTH Orthodox Marxism and modern Capitalism. This fact is not respected on that page, and it gives a biased view, and an incorrect set of assumptions about the theorists listed. The fact that the page is looking to expand with a focus on including random Marxists - makes it no longer suitable as a hat note for Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (which is about a specific set of neo-Marxists, who became run of the mill social democrats and liberals. Theorists like Raymond Williams and Richard Hoggart of The Birmingham School went as far as to burn their Communist party membership cards). So obviously, as I hold this viewpoint - I also don't think that Marxist cultural analysis is an appropriate page to be involved in the disambig. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how relevant this is to the AfD discussion, but the IP seems to put forward the view that because some scholars went as far as to burn their Communist party membership cards, that they aren't "Marxists". The view that "Marxists" and "neomarxists" are mutually exclusive categories is a small minority view, not supported by scholarship, and can't be reflected in either WP article space or for that matter in disambiguation decisions. Newimpartial (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I've explained to you elsewhere, there are clear sources that back up my point of view, and zero sources that call them orthodox Marxists, despite what the title of the article suggests. That's why they're called "cultural Marxists" because the whole point of these schools is that they were radically breaking from Marxism.

You can deny that and slap the title "MARXISTS" on them all day - but that completely ignores the historical facts, and leaves Wikipedia in the position of substantiating a false claim about these very modern thinkers. Some of whom are still alive by the way.
"Hoggart’s political viewpoints were not outwardly expressed until much later in life, and make clear his aversion to Marxism" Source 1

"The final break with orthodox Marxism occurred with the Frankfurt School’s coming to condemn the Soviet Union as a politically oppressive system. Politically the Frankfurt School sought to position itself equidistant from both Soviet socialism and liberal capitalism" Source 2

"This is Habermas' basic judgment on Marx: Marx's praxis philosophy is still a kind of subjective philosophy, while behind the concept of “labor” in praxis philosophy is still a single rationality: cognitive-instrumental rationality." Source 3 (hence why we don't say Habermas is a Marxist on his page - because he wasn't.)

There are plenty of similar sources out there. You're the one without any sources claiming they were regular old Marxists. That's the truth here: it's actually a fact that YOUR position is unsourced. NOT MINE! This is the whole reason why they're called "Critical Theorists" - rather than Marxists (as Wikipedia currently has it). Labeling them as Marxists is ahistoric and leans towards the conspiracy theory rather than away from it.

101.115.128.217 (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete disambig with only two pages is silly. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I think, per Howard Alexander mostly. I'm not 100% sure this is the best way to solve this problem, but it seems much better than the status quo ante. The term "cultural Marxism" is used quite a bit, by detractors, to describe a flavor of left-leaning politics/academics focusing on identity-based oppression and a critique of liberalism, essentially what is also referred to by detractors as SJW, PC, CRT (or just Critical Theory), woke, etc. Or at least, vaguely adjacent to those things; rigorously pinning down taxonomies of political rhetoric is probably a fool's errand. I feel like we have a couple of articles about that topic already, so I don't think we need a new one with the title Cultural Marxism! But, since that is easily the most common use of the term, it is problematic to have it redirect to a different meaning of the term, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Here's a problem, though: there aren't a lot of high quality sources talking about this more common meaning of the term: it's a sloppy term, and different labels are usually used for the thing instead (Even Jordan Peterson almost exclusively calls it something else, "postmodernism"), and anti-semitic white supremacy is a pretty important subject of academic inquiry. It's an interesting failure mode of Wikipedias policies/guidelines. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As repeatedly noted, there's no reason to have a two-topic disambiguation page. Also, I note that since this AfD was begun, there has been no effort at the subject DAB article to expand or improve it to address this issue, which seems like a tacit acknowledgment that it is unlikely to be expanded or expandable. CAVincent (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, there's an author on talk at Marxist cultural analysis who is about to throw Trotsky back into what is essentially a page about the early development of Critical Theory. There's also discussions on the talk page that from @Newimpartial about including (in their own words) - "classical Marxist, Orthodox, and Leninist or Trotskyite approaches" on the page. As well as "later developments as Critical Theory (post-Marcuse), Socialist Feminist analysis, and Laclau&Mouffe-style post-Marxist approaches to cultural critique". To this end, editors have already "trimmed" certain founding members of The Birmingham School (because they weren't Marxist enough). So project Revisionist history is well underway at Marxist cultural analysis.

In short, the plan for the article is to make it a WP:Coatrack that has little relevance to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page. This is a blow for having a disambig... but also means the DAB should probably be removed from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have mentioned my comments while leaving out the point I emphasize the most, which is that we must follow the sources on the topic in making decisions about inclusion. If the sources generally are what you call revisionist, we must follow them. Newimpartial (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your choices for the page give the impression The Critical Theorists were Orthodox Marxists, where are the sources for that NewImpartial? Now you and Patrick are going to put Trotsky back onto the page - so why should the DAB on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory direct people to Marxist cultural analysis any more? Are there any sources for Trotsky being described as a "cultural Marxist" somewhere? Are YOU going to provide any sources like I have above?

No of course you're not. Because you're building a WP:Coatrack that won't be related in any way shape or form to the disambig hatnote. We must follow the sources - all the sources say they critiqued Orthodox Marxism, and grew further and further away from that term (Source 4) - so why are we filing them under Marxism, along side Orthodox Marxists like Trotsky, as if they share some resemblance??? Likewise, why does the Critical Theory page happily list Habermas under the sidebar for Marxism. This over emphasis of them as "Marxists" is ahistoric. There's an obvious reason why they were called Critical Theorists, and not Marxist theorists - it's because they were Neo-Marxists, then later, not Marxists at all. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Phil Slater traces the extent, and ultimate limits, of the Frankfurt School's professed relation to the Marxian critique of political economy... ...He shows that, in particular, the analysis of psychic and cultural manipulation was central to the young rebels' theoretical armour, but that even here, the lack of economic class analysis seriously restricts the critical edge of the Frankfurt School's theory." (Source 5)

"Nothing intrinsicaly Marxist, that is to say, defines "cultural Marxism," save for the evocation or hope of a postbourgeois society... ...The mistake of those who see one position sequeing into another is to confuse contents with personalities." (Source 6, page 10)

"The Frankfurt School, known more appropriately as Critical Theory" (Source 7)

...

The sources say - it has Marxist origins, and uses Marxist principles, but is not its self Marxist. Do we still follow the sources NewImpartial??? 101.115.128.217 (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have noted at the article Talk page, the only sources you have provided in this Gish gallop that actually claim the Frankfurt School to be "non-Marxist" are sectarian, not scholarly ones.

Also, your statement that I give the impression The Critical Theorists - excellent band name, by the way - were Orthodox Marxists is entirely a straw man. The Frankfurt School writers were unorthodox Marxists and, according to the sources, that was rather the point. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"[I]t is unlikely to be expanded or expandable" is one explanation. Another is that editors are put off by the AfD nomination "scare" box placed at the top of the nominated page. Why invest time in improving something when your efforts might be in vain? Additionally, many editors may not realize that it's permissible to edit a page nominated for AfD. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some contributors seem to be suggesting there is a concerted plan for editing - a conspiracy indeed. I think that is more than somewhat unlikely, don't you? (Perhaps we need a page "Cultural Marxism conspiracy conspiracy theory"?)

I created the disambiguation page simply because the term has, over the years, been used in numerous different ways. Even the sources cited on the conspiracy theory page affirm this. Therefore when a politician or commentator is quoted as having used the term 'Cultural Marxism' it could be in any of several senses - I started off with two, but the source material shows that several others could be added.

To take a random example, the article on Suella Braverman mentions that she attacked 'Cultural Marxism', but no one could seriously suggest that she thinks that there are bearded men scuttling in a dark room conspiring to overthrow society for malicious ends, let alone that she is anti-Jewish. That would be libelling her, seriously. Then you get actual loonies who do believe that. In the Braverman example - I have never met her to ask, but in the context it is clear that she meant it as a synonym for Critical theory, explained on the basis of swapping Marx's class struggle / oppression dynamic for a supposed struggle between other groups.

Others later took the term off the web without context and have spun it into the idea of a conspiracy, and conspiracies usually develop an ugly anti-Semitic variant. Previous uses, before the term took off on a dark path, are still there, and when uttered they did not mean what the term may have come to mean.

The point then is to find the best way to allow Wikipedia links to point to the right concept amongst many, or to ambiguity where we do not know the context, rather than libelling people in the public eye. That seems to me to be the purpose of a disambiguation page. When we have "Boston (disambiguation)", it is not intended that pages actually point to it en masse, but they can be pointed there while the context is uncertain, and then linked to the correct version when that is determined. Doing that in a long, long hatnote is too clumsy. Howard Alexander (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not a dictionary of what politicians may have meant when they spoke (and you'd be hard pressed to find a politician who cites sources). We're an Encyclopedia of WP:NOTABLE ideas and concepts.

In the case of Suella Braverman, I believe The Board of Deputies of British Jews sat her down and had a chat with her about what she meant [11]. Wikipedia is not here to become involved in such political occurrences, nor should we seek to become involved in them. We are here ONLY to report them when they become relevant/notable. Braverman's case is listed BECAUSE it became relevant and notable. I'm not aware of any other notable usages from her since sitting down with the Board of Deputies.

To create a page specifically to sort out what we think politicians mean when they use the term - would be a violation of WP:SOAPBOX. If that's your position, you're unlikely to succeed. We're here to report from sources, not perform original research, or construct coatrack articles (or disambiguation pages) because they're politically convenient. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My earlier comment focused on procedural issues with this AfD. Now, I'll present the actual rationales for keeping the dab page. The nominator argues that the See also articles are irrelevant and serve merely as padding, but this is incorrect. Cultural Bolshevism is both topically and historically related to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, as both articles explain. Similarly, Western Marxism and Cultural studies are closely linked to Marxist cultural analysis, and all three topics overlap to a significant extent. One unique link not available in any other article is the link to Wiktionary, which is particularly important because the term cultural Marxism is highly politicized and has evolved into a meme. None of the articles directly address this aspect -- nor should they, as this is the role of Wiktionary. In summary, given the politicized nature of the term, the inclusion of the Wiktionary link and the "See also" articles not only aids navigation but also provides readers with an important option unavailable elsewhere, representing a reasonable exception to the WP:ONEOTHER guideline. As with any Wikipedia guideline, exceptions may apply, and Cultural Marxism is one such exceptional case. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, these are nuanced discussions that should be addressed in the RfC, which is why I again urge postponing the AfD until the RfC is complete. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to happen. TarnishedPath^talk 10:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources that say "cultural Marxism" refers to anything that you're claiming it does (eg. refers to any of the pages you've listed). That's your problem. You may see them as "relevant" but that only makes them eligible for a "See also" section, not a for the creation of a disambig. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of the Amalekites

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

WP:POVFORK of Amalek. Andre🚐 01:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Andre🚐 01:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid RFC: I moved Amalek to Genocide of the Amalekites as the Amaleks appear nowhere else in the Bible and the events are near-unanimously considered to be genocide. (Even by evangelical Christians.) This should have been contested through a revert and then me filing a contested move request. The description given above does not accurately describe the context. OntologicalTree (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can open a move request but what you actually did was revert a redirect into an article[12] Andre🚐 01:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep ? Zero rationale given for why it should be deleted. Is this some sort of error? I'm assuming a rationale will be forthcoming?Moxy🍁 02:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? I just said it's a WP:POVFORK of Amalek. It's basically a duplicated rewrite of that article with a bunch of POV changes. Andre🚐 02:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Amalekites have no notability outside of the genocide. (Even conservative evangelicals such as The Gospel Coalition call it such.) OntologicalTree (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reliable source. And that's not an argument to keep the fork. Andre🚐 02:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear WP:POVFORK of Amalek that the article creator started after a series of unacceptable behaviors. Longhornsg (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As already mentioned, this is just a POV fork of Amalek. Qualiesin (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All points worth covering have already been covered. Nothing more need be said. Sinclairian (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avrum Rosensweig

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

This biography is almost entirely self-sourced (or using a congregational bulletin as a source), citing blog entries or pages from his or his organization's websites or summarising the subject's opinions as published in op-ed pieces written by him. Wellington Bay (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having surfed through the sources here, I find the nom is bang on the money. Sourcing is indeed scanty and all roads lead back to Avrum Rosensweig. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI don't believe this page should be deleted, but I do agree that some things should be better sourced.

Avrum Rosensweig has literally changed the landscape of Canadian Jewish philanthropy by founding Ve’ahavta, Canada’s only Jewish rooted, humanitarian organization, in the country.

Over the years, the organization has helped tens of thousands of people on the streets of Toronto, as well as in countries like Guyana and Zimbabwe.

(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Seth_Silverman, where work done by Dr. Michael Silverman on Ve’ahavta sponsored trips has saved literally thousands of lives.)

While Rosensweig retired years ago, and is no longer involved in the organization, Ve’ahavta continues to thrive as Canada’ s only Jewish humanitarian organization, living up to the universal ideals and values that he began the organization with.

So again, I think that the sources could be improved, but the page should certainly stay. Uiaeli (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no coverage to be found of this person in .ca websites, other than social media and primary sources. This appears to be PROMO, a rather long-winded, wordy article that doesn't have much sourcing that isn't connected to the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am familiar with this person's name in Canada, specifically through knowledge of the NGO he founded. That and some other elements on the page fall under encyclopedic content. I have not contributed to that many pages, but I would like to spend a week or two cleaning this page up/re-sourcing to save this page from deletion if possible. Colinwhite613 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a issues with listing involvement in the synagogue where he served in a leadership capacity as long as the information in balanced evenly and objective. As I understand it, this particular one was build by Holocaust survivors.

~~ Reehabmail (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is also a point I wanted to bring up. These sources, while very real, would benefit form outside sources, there may not be a lot but there will be some, based on his written contributions published and the work with Ve'havta. this NGO is encyclopedia content. I hope this will be weighed, and the recent changes taken into acct. Uiaeli (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are many notable pages on Wikipedia that are contributors on various media sites that do not have a lot of sources in which others write about them, but their writing and exposure to their communities and audiences have made impacts. I am researching more sources now for this subject's namespace. The page looks like it has been cleaned up, and promotional material was removed (a lot of it). Some more summarizing and copy edits on expanded articles could be streamlined. I will post on the user's talk page with suggestions for the original contributor and will add some/remove other areas deemed not worthy. Ve'ahavta should not be ignored. His roles in my research is substantial, as well as his exposure to his community and messages against anti-hate campaigns/antisemitism.
Reehabmail (talk • contribs) 22:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this above, the suggestion would be to remove television content since its not a encyclopedic in nature at this time. There is a source for radio, but perhaps it is seem as PROMO. I hope sone contributors tske some time to edit. Uiaeli (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uiaeli: @8barzmusic: Well, given that it was sourced from an article in The Forward, the fact that he had a TV show is one of the few facts in the article that actually has a solid citation. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington

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

Delete or redirect to Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) as WP:ATD. One of 100+ local JCRCs, and this one is non-notable without WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:NORG. Coverage where it exists, is WP:ROUTINE or WP:PROMO. Longhornsg (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom Andre🚐 08:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhism

Giani Harpreet Singh

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

Sources provide only routine coverage to this individual which is no different than WP:NOTNEWS. Many other Jathedars of Akal Takht also don't have separate articles. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sikhism, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retain the page- Most of the jathedar has wikipedia pages and He remained the head of Akal Takht the highest seat of Sikh Community. Wikiravidas (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument "he is certainly notable" does not carry any weight. -The Gnome (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments should focus on policy-based reasons and the quality of the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep as the BLP of the subject passes GNG. The nominator should have done a BEFORE. — Mister Banker (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Mister Banker has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts.

Mister Banker, can you be more specific as to which sources help establish GNG? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The subject is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE who is the appointed head of the highest temporal seat of Sikhs and to whom India's second highest category security was granted by the Indian government (The Economic Times, Times Now). He has also received other coverage over the years. See: The Quint, The Quint, NDTV, ABP LIVE, Business Standard — Mister Banker (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, therefore not usable for establishing notability. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Have you even read what NEWSORGINDIA says? You need to show how this coverage falls under it. Simply saying it does, just doesn't cut it. — Mister Banker (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, Mister Banker. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your first two sources only talk about granting Z security to him[13][14] and his refusal, they do not provide any other information about him. The rest of the coverage you are talking about is only due to his controversial statements over the years[15][16], this too is only about the statement he made , this source is only reporting his statement on his wife's arrest at the airport without providing any additional coverage about him, none of these sources have in-depth or significant coverage of his life beyond rudimentary attention to his controversial statements. My rationale still stands, he is only getting occasional news worthy coverage only due to his statements not because he is independently notable. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short, you have agreed that WP:NEWSORGINDIA doesn't apply here and that he is notable enough that the media seems it worthy to provide coverage to his statements which can be added to the article to let the readers know about his stance on socio-political matters. — Mister Banker (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lorstaking (talk)
Keep, from the sources it seems to qualify WP:GNG.Also, Akal Takht is the supreme religious authority in Sikhism and we have wikipedia articles for the head and members of such religious authorities.Adamantine123 (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agreed with @Adamantine123. Also there are cited enough reliable sources to support the BLP' article to meet GNG. MSLQr (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what are those sources that establish GNG? - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a clearly promotional text, lacking sources that would support the subject's notability. Fails WP:GNG, despite all the chaff. The plethora of SPA's curating it does not help much. -The Gnome (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had little coverage for controversial statements, but that does not help in establishing GNG. Dympies (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous