Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Religion|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Religion. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Religion

edit

Wayne Clarke (broadcaster)

edit
Wayne Clarke (broadcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability tag up for over five years. Jw93d59 (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bao ying

edit
Bao ying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Weak delete or probably merge with karma, see also w:zh:報應, wikt:報應. Also this is more like Wiktionary content, rather than Wikipedia content. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 14:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ming yun

edit
Ming yun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or probably merge with destiny, see also w:zh:命運, wikt:命運. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 13:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Cormode

edit
Scott Cormode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of encyclopedic notability for this academic administrator. BD2412 T 00:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement among participants on whether or not this article subject can pass WP:NPROF or WP:HEY.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Religion Proposed deletions

edit

Religion Templates

edit


Atheism

edit

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

edit


Buddhism

edit

Categories

edit

Templates

edit

Miscellaneous

edit


Christianity

edit

St Elizabeth convent school Vellarikundu

edit
St Elizabeth convent school Vellarikundu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:NOR, WP:ORG. Fails everything! Schools don't have notability just because they are is an existing. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 13:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Shamoun

edit
Sam Shamoun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject. All I could find were blogs and press releases. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 17:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Clarke (broadcaster)

edit
Wayne Clarke (broadcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability tag up for over five years. Jw93d59 (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Death Gospel

edit
Death Gospel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any evidence of this being a standalone or notable genre beyond Adam Arcuragi. The cited sources are all about Arcuragi, including the paper by Harriss which only mentions Arcuragi talking about his inspirations. There is also this post, but most of the artists mentioned don't seem to identify with or credit it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Philip Kakkanattu

edit
Joy Philip Kakkanattu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not demonstrate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of the references are affiliated publications, without the depth required to satisfy GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 11:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ordinaries of the Personal Ordinariates

edit
List of Ordinaries of the Personal Ordinariates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST for lack of sources that discuss the ordinaries of the various Anglican-rite Catholic ordinariates as a group. In contesting a PROD, A. B. said this passes NLIST since all the entries are bluelinked, but there is no evidence that sources have covered these individually notable bishops/priests as a group. (They are already listed at the pages for the individual ordinariates.) I did a BEFORE search but happy to be proven wrong if anyone can turn up sourcing to demonstrate an NLIST pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Christianity. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there is no evidence that sources have covered these individually notable bishops/priests as a group. It is a common misconception that this is required for a list. What WP:LIST says is that "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources..." However, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists..." Jahaza (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see it as not needed duplication since they are all already in a list at the pages for the individual ordinariates. Rolluik (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion as a contested PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St Benedict Patron of Europe Association

edit
St Benedict Patron of Europe Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing any standalone notability for this organization per WP:NORG. References are to its own website ([3], [4]), WP:PRIMARYSOURCE documents from the Vatican ([5], [6], [7]), and official Catholic Church directory listings). I didn't find any other qualifying independent WP:SIGCOV per WP:ORGCRIT in my BEFORE search. Open to a merger of encyclopedic content to another page but not sure where the content would be WP:DUE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: A weak vote from me as a new-ish editor, but with no COI, I'm not Roman Catholic. This association is a French-Italian-Polish organisation, judging from the board of directors, and in French there is a lot of additional sources. I have added 2 French sources, one from the Dicastery for Laity, the other from Radio chrétienne francophone [fr] - and I could have added more. The Dicastery is (yet) another Curia department, so arguably still WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, but it is a mass participation body and I would say high profile, and operates under its own steam. That first link also has a lot of suitable extra material to improve the article in question here, which I / anyone can update if the consensus is to retain. The RCF link - that is an independent radio station, within a pro-Christian mindset. It is part funded by some Catholic stakeholders. The link is of an radio interview with the French president of the Association, some extracts are on the web page, more in the embedded media. There isn't much more there to support the article, but what I thought was pertinent was that when the radio station wanted to talk about St. Benedict and Europe, this was the person to whom they turned. She then went on to bash the late French President Chirac for apparently trying to downplay the Christian heritage of modern Europe, I have no idea about that, but it does indicate that Mme. Chapon had a particular message to push out, connected with her job with the Association. But yes, this Wiki article isn't a good one, it is poorly written, badly sourced, can be improved. I think traditional Wiki sourcing isn't picking this up too well since it operates in multiple languages, mostly not English, and uses multiple translations of the Association's name, rather than sticking to one version. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The French link to the Dicastery for Laity is just the French version of the English directory listing already in the article and discussed in my nomination. The RCF content is an interview with the CEO about Saint Benedict, not WP:SIGCOV of the association, and it's not independent coverage at any rate since it's an WP:INTERVIEW. I don't see how either of these sources gets us any closer to WP:NORG here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point I was perhaps not clear about was that on the RCF web page, not the interview, the RCF journalist states - in summary - that after St. Benedict was awarded the title, some clerics wanted to respond to the proclamation by creating the association. So this is a statement on RCF's page and I take that as a Secondary source (WP:SECONDARY), separate and independent of the WP:MAINSOURCE. In addition there is a bit of NORG by dint of what the Association's president was doing, in a public forum, and why she said it - I accept it's not direct to the article. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The passage you describe is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, not SIGCOV of the organization. It shows it exists but not much more. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a list, here: Directory of International Associations of the Faithful. (Terot (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you, I didn't know. Rolluik (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Fram is also good. Rolluik (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more feedback on possible merge/redirect targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Cormode

edit
Scott Cormode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of encyclopedic notability for this academic administrator. BD2412 T 00:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement among participants on whether or not this article subject can pass WP:NPROF or WP:HEY.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

edit

Categories for discussion

edit

Miscellaneous

edit

Hinduism

edit

Pajeet

edit


Pajeet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Largely trivial coverage in sources (RS or otherwise), fails WP:SIGCOV for notability esecially for a racial slur like this. The exact article (with the same sources) has been repeatedly created from a redirect by the singular WP:LTA sock network Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial ([11], [12], [13], [14]) whose intentions have been nothing more than racist trolling ([15], [16]). The article itself has only served as a racist troll magnet whenever it has been repeatedly created ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]). Edit: And 15 more accounts have just been banned for disruption related to the article since this AfD has been up ([27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43] and 12 more).

Coming to the sources (currently/previously at the article/Talk):

We ultimately have very few RS which cover the term in any significant capacity, a standalone article as such cannot really be justified (nothing which can't be/isn't already covered at List of ethnic slurs). The slur is no different from more older ones (e.g. 1, e.g. 2) whose standalone articles we do not feature for similar reasons. Gotitbro (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Ethnic groups, Hinduism, Sikhism, India, Canada, Australia, United States, United Kingdom. Gotitbro (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per nominator's own admission that this term finds non trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources such as the NCRI report on Hinduphobia, Institute for Strategic Dialogue, and DFRAC. These three sources provide in-depth coverage required for the article, see WP:THREE. Koshuri (あ!) 09:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    THREE is a personal essay (really the first time I am seeing it at AfD). Though I would like to clarify that I haven't listed DFRAC as RS nor have I listed ISD as non-trivial. That you have cited stable while restoring the largely socked version of the article is concerning. Gotitbro (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:THREE is only to back my point that in most cases only three reliable sources with in-depth coverage are enough to prove notability. Your continued disparagement of the article's stable version as sock despite it being restored and responsibility for the content being taken by multiple editors in good standing is getting tendentious. Koshuri (あ!) 10:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has taken "responsibility for the content", Altenmann initially restored the article [44]/[45] the article (also saying refs were a plenty which as can be seen were really just trivial bloat) and was clearly unaware of sock shenanigangs. The restoration was imediately challenged twice by different editors [46], [47] but ultimately restored again by you [48] telling editors to take it to AfD. None of this would be considered WP:STABLE. Why would you revert apparent sock cleanup is also beyond me.
    Coming to THREE, a user essay which has been neither satisfied nor a standalone article based on these justified. Nothing we can't handle at the pre-existing list. Gotitbro (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly notable term as per the sources mentioned above. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of ethnic slurs#P or Delete (in that order of preference): Fails WP:SIGCOV. There is currently no scholarly source at all that discusses the subject. Coverage so far is limited to mostly low-quality sources. There is also precedence per "curry-m*ncher" being redirect to the list article and "d*t head" not existing. The fact that article was written primarily by a sock-farm (with seven year long history of socking), who misrepresented even the already questionable sources and quickly added the slur to a WP:BLP only shows the bad-faith disruption. The tendency of some editors to prefer that source-misrepresented sock version is also beyond me. Given the obsessive preoccupation that the longtime sock has with the slur, I expect a visit by him here as well eventually. --UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no requirement that sourcing must be scholarly for establishing the notability of a term, regardless there is enough scholarly coverage for this article . "Curry muncher" and "dothead" are little known and were never used widely unlike the term "Pajeet". So quoting them as "precedence" is a non argument. The rest of your argument is nothing more than the same disparagement of the article for being created by a sock and bad faith assumptions. Koshuri (あ!) 14:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, scholarly sources are not necessary for notability (the subject fails notability regardless of the lack of any meaningful scholarship on it) but scholarly sources give the most reliable information, which the article and indeed the term currently largely lacks. As for curry-m*ncher being "little known and were never used widely unlike the term Pajeet", that is simply false. For one, we have multiple scholarly sources for it: Tom Dalzell; Terry Victor, eds. (2006), The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, Routledge, p. 534; Virtual Homelands: Indian Immigrants and Online Cultures in the United States, University of Illinois Press, 2014, p. 29; Anne Collett; Leigh Dale, eds. (2018), Postcolonial Past & Present, BRILL, p. 174 and many, many more scholarly as well as literary usages. Asserting otherwise is stretching the limits of WP:OR, which unsurprisingly is also what the sock version of the article mostly was. We don't reward specific slur-obsessed socks by going against precedence and sourcing guidelines. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: We have similar articles like Paki (slur), American-born confused desi, etc more. Pajeet is a popular term across social media and sources are well notable (per argument by other Keep votes). But I agree this article must be improved and rephrased to Good Faith.. It shouldn't be used for trolling as like the sock editor. The current version seems stable enough but the more good faith & neutral, the more better to keep the article. WinKyaw (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The former is well attested in RS [per its article], the latter is not a slur (and also well attested). "Popular term across social media" raises questions on the kind of social media being referred to [we are not a documentation hub for 4chan and X bigots] rather than as a rationale for notability. Gotitbro (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well here in this category, I see lots of similar articles. Nothing much wrong with this being existing. And popular term across social media is for all medias especially Facebook, Instagram, X & so on.
    Mainly I think if Pallywood, Locust (ethnic slur), Polaco (slur), Wetback (slur), etc can exist, there's nothing wrong with this article too! WinKyaw (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pallywood has sources published by Sussex Academic Press, Routledge, Journal of Communication, Third World Quarterly and many other similar academic sources. Polaco and Wetback have similar academic sourcing. This article lacks any comparable sources, thus the comparison is faulty. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whether the article was created by a sock or not is irrelevant given the subject meets WP:GNG. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The term is inaccurate, but quite widespread colloquially. Svartner (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep widely used internet slur that has persisted for some time. Metallurgist (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article has been considerably improved in good faith and as per @Ratnahastin WP:SIGCOV has been sufficiently addressed.
I must say, it is of interesting note that a user has just been blocked for vandalizing the article as we are actively discussing this.. Eulersidentity (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - The term "Pajeet" is highly notable and has received in-depth coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources:
  • In a case study by Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers University, this term is covered extensively, with almost entire study revolving around it. 33 mentions of the slur , along with his history, usage, variants etc all are covered over several pages.[49]
  • In a report by Rohit Chopra, Professor in the Department of Communication at Santa Clara University and Visiting Scholar at the Center for South Asia at Stanford University, the term is covered extensively and it is published by the Centre of study of organized hate[50]
  • Non trivial coverage in a report by Institute for Strategic Dialogue [51]
  • Extensive coverage in DFRAC , an IFCN certified fact checker. This report covers the origin, and history of the term along with analysis of its usage on social media. [52]
  • Significant coverage in a Global Project Against Hate and Extremism  (GPAHE) study [53]

Enough to prove that this term is highly notable and has received scholarly attention. It has also been used as an insult against various public figures of Indian origin in the west as well and there is ample news coverage for that, but I won't be citing that. Ratnahastin (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The review of sources in the nomination is appalling. With your logic, we can reject any sources such as CNN ("they are favorable to Democrats"), Oxford University press ("they are situated in the mainland of colonial British empire") or any other source. Sikhpride38 (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, entirely apalling that we don't consider thecommunemag.com (samvadaworld.com), hindupost.in, hindutimescanada.ca, Know Your Meme, townpost.in, baaznews as RS nor trivial mentions of the term. None of the rationale that you cite has been given above. Interesting that an account, with only 11 edits, that hasn't edited in 3 years suddenly pops up at an AfD and then proceeds to revert SPA tags. Gotitbro (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is defending unreliable sources like Hindupost ans Communemag. You are doubting credibility of even DFRAC, Online Hate Prevention Institute, The Daily Pennsylvanian and other reliable sources. According to your logic, there can be no reliable sources. Sikhpride38 (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For DFRAC, I could not find any independent coverage of it as a source beyond media reposts of its 'fact-checks', the Online Hate Prevention Institute lacks a byline and has a single-line mention of the term, The Daily Pennsylvanian is a student newspaper with barely anything to say about the term. Hence, under unsure reliability. These are not the sources that you want to be hedging notability on.
I will note that you have repeatedly reverted the SPA tag added by different editors, very COI. Gotitbro (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I refuse to defend myself against a mischaracterization? Looks like you don't understand what is a "COI". Back to the actual topic, you are just proving the point that every source would seem unreliable if we used your logic. The Daily Pennsylvanian is used in 100s of Wikipedia article.[54] Sikhpride38 (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Pennsylvanian: Usage elsewhere at enwiki has no bearing on why student newspapers should be cited in the first place, lacks sigcov anyhow.
Conflict of interest is removing tags added by uninvolved editors in a contentious topic space. Does not help that a new user with barely a few edits is well versed with AfDs, SPA and COI. I further wonder why you think this is neutral, seemingly furthering racist tropes without any balance. Gotitbro (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have only responded to some editors about clarifications for the nom statement, ridiculous to call this BLUDGEON. Gotitbro (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

edit

Templates

edit

Miscellaneous

edit

Hinduism Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

edit


Islam

edit

Bahahuddin Nadwi

edit
Bahahuddin Nadwi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Repost of previously deleted and salted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahauddeen Nadwi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahauddeen Nadwi (2nd nomination). Created by a sockpuppet evading a block. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darul Huda Islamic University has been kept after previous deletion nominations (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darul Huda Islamic University – result: speedy keep). The subject of this article, Bahauddeen Nadwi, is not just affiliated — he is the founder and long-serving VC, and his name appears in reliable sources including official institutional materials.

The only real issue here seems to be confusion over name spelling variants (e.g., "Bahauddeen" vs. "Bahahuddin"). That shouldn't be grounds for deletion — it can be corrected or merged rather than removed entirely. Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that was speedy kept in 2013 because of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but SCHOOLOUTCOMES was changed in 2017 so that schools are no longer always notable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A better reference would be the latest AfD, WP:Articles for deletion/Darul Huda Islamic University (4th nomination) were the result was keep -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's surprising to see that Darul Huda Islamic University has faced four AfD nominations, despite being an established institution with coverage in reliable sources. The repeated nominations of related topics like Bahauddeen Nadwi and the deletion of Al Jamia Al Islamiya raise important questions about consistency in how Wikipedia applies notability standards for educational and religious institutions.
If WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES no longer guarantees notability for all universities, then we need to rely even more on clear sourcing standards and community consistency. But in cases like DHIU repeated nominations seem excessive.
I understand the need to prevent spam or promotional content, but deletion should not become the default response to institutions or people outside mainstream Western academia, especially when reliable sources exist.
What is the goal of repeated deletions if notability is already reasonably established? Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with "mainstream Western academia", all universitirs are judged by the same standards regardless of where they re in the world -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The "keep" AfD result at WP:Articles for deletion/Darul Huda Islamic University (4th nomination) is highly suspicious, especially given that 2 of the keep !voters were subsequently banned. The only thing that "deletion is the default response to" is the contempt for proper processes that has been shown here; block evasion, source falsification, inappropriate use of AI, conflict-of-interest editing, WP:GAMENAMEing, etc; my goal in nominating this page for deletion was to ensure that those antics don't prevail, and I would do the same for any subject regardless of whether or not it is outside mainstream Western acaemia. And while this is expressly my own opinion and contrary to policy which says that the content decision should not be influenced by other's behavior, I personally am totally fine with the consequences of resorting to such tactics being that articles on topics that would otherwise have survived be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my personal opinion, the Vice Chancellor of a clearly notable university should also be considered notable — especially if they are the founding VC and have held that role over a long period. The position itself carries significant academic and public responsibility.
While I understand that notability must be supported by reliable, independent sources per WP:GNG, I believe that holding a top leadership role at an institution like Darul Huda Islamic University — which has been subject to multiple AfDs and kept — is a strong indicator of independent significance. Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automatic notability for academics usually requires a named chair rather than being a vice principal, see WP:NPROF for the details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Shamoun

edit
Sam Shamoun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject. All I could find were blogs and press releases. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 17:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jusuf Zimeri

edit
Jusuf Zimeri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find WP:GNG level sources. Most of the cited sources are self-published or connected to the source, and the ones that aren't make only trivial mention of the subject. Subject also does not seem to qualify for any WP:NPROF criteria. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Masood

edit
AfDs for this article:
Tariq Masood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has already been deleted twice, once in 2023 and again in 2024. Looking at the current version, it reads less like a Wikipedia article and more like a résumé written in a promotional tone. As for the references, the majority come from WP:NEWSORGINDIA, which are largely routine coverage. The subject seems to appear in the news from time to time mainly due to controversies, which again amounts to routine coverage. I don’t think the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR in any way. Mehar R. Khan (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (as the creator of this article) – I respectfully disagree with the deletion nomination. The subject meets WP:GNG because there is clear evidence of significant, independent coverage in multiple reliable sources across different regions and languages. In Pakistan, outlets such as Dawn have covered Tariq Masood’s role in national debates including his participation in anti-extremism seminars and opposition to domestic legislation, while The Express Tribune reported on his participation in major religious conferences. In India, mainstream newspapers including The Print, The Economic Times, Navbharat Times and Rajasthan Patrika have all reported on him, particularly in the context of blasphemy debates, public threats, and controversies. In Bangladesh, media such as Somoy News, Kaler Kantho, Dhaka Today, Dhaka Post, and Naya Diganta gave extensive coverage to his 2025 tour, including addresses at leading universities and mass gatherings, with multiple outlets analysing the reasons for his popularity among youth. In addition, his presence is documented in academic work: a 2024 German-language study on antisemitism in social media lists him among Pakistani clerics whose Urdu sermons contained hostile rhetoric towards Jews and Zionism,[1] while a 2023 peer-reviewed chapter on Islamic preaching analyses his use of social media as part of wider trends in South Asian religious discourse.[2]
    The range of sourcing—spanning Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Germany—demonstrates coverage that is neither routine nor trivial, but substantial and sustained over time. It includes reporting on his educational background, international preaching, controversies, and his role in social debates. This satisfies WP:GNG as well as WP:AUTHOR, since coverage exists in both news media and academic literature. The article draft may have contained promotional tone, but this is a matter for neutral copy-editing and trimming under WP:NPOV, not a reason for deletion. Given the breadth and independence of sources, the subject clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability standards and the article should therefore be kept. Khaatir (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)    [reply]

References

  1. ^ Hübscher, Monika; Mering, Sabine von (2024-06-17). Antisemitismus in den Sozialen Medien [Antisemitism in Social Media] (in German). Verlag Barbara Budrich. p. 168. ISBN 978-3-8474-1950-1.
  2. ^ Sajjad, Mohammad Waqas (2023-12-18), Akca, Ayşe Almıla; Feise-Nasr, Mona; Stenske, Leonie; Süer, Aydın (eds.), "Mufti Tariq Masood and the Performance of Religious Speech: Social Media and Religious Discourses in Pakistan", Practices of Islamic Preaching: Text, Performativity, and Materiality of Islamic Religious Speech, De Gruyter, pp. 237–256, doi:10.1515/9783110788334-012, ISBN 978-3-11-078833-4, retrieved 2025-08-18
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Ali (actress)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Nadia Ali (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The 2017 AfD was snowed in favor of retaining the article. I believe this was incorrect. The subject fails ANYBIO. The subject has not received a well known honor nor has the person made a widely recognized contribution to the field. The claim to fame is basically “Muslim adult performer.” This performer post-dates Mia Khalifa’s hijab scene, so Nadia Ali is not any sort of “first,” in the field. Even if she were, what exactly is her contribution here? There were remarks in the first AfD that she was threatened and it got coverage. A woman was threatened online? Hardly a man bites dog situation. If one wants to argue ANYBIO, how was adult entertainment changed by her brief time in the industry? It was not. Even then, ANYBIO (which I maintain she does not meet) is merely a likelihood, not a guarantee. There is substantial overlap between ANYBIO and WP:ENT, so this might be a little redundant, BUT she did not star in many adult films and as I mention in why I believe the subject fails ANYBIO, her short-lived career did not have a unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Even the sources themselves state she did a small number of scenes. WP:EVENT would not consider her notable for any of the scenes had they gone viral.

The other argument is WP:GNG. The sourcing in the article is such: There are two Daily Beast interviews and a quote of her all written by the same author (an actual notable performer). For the purposes of GNG, this would be a single source only if those interviews are considered sufficiently independent of the subject. The other sources are also interviews and press releases.

In the first AfD, someone listed a bunch of sources as a rebuttal. The problem is some run afoul of WP:NEWSORGINDIA and the repetitive natures of those that don’t run afoul make me question the intellectual independence and if such a list was confusing existence with notability. Mpen320 (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Open to changing my vote if someone brings better WP:THREE sources. Until then, the subject fails WP:GNG per my analysis of the sources mentioned above. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm leaning Keep with references 1-3 listed here, and articles in the Daily Beast with a couple of paragraphs about the subject like [60] (ProQuest 1813269656) and [61] (ProQuest 1780576122, part interview). This one [62] pasted as a link above from The Times is a summary of Daily Beast interviews (I think it should count). I'm seriously considering Mpen320's WP:ANYBIO point though. One could argue that being one of the first Muslim porn actresses might not be notable, but there is coverage of the subject, and the ANYBIO argument can be subjective. Nnev66 (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have essentially repeated what the previous editors mentioned. Those sources are op-eds, syndicated news, no consensus on reliability and The Times is inaccessible. This is without even considering the fact that they are interviews. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm explaining why I'm leaning Keep, hence my summary of the references. I think it's important to have references under consideration for GNG have numbers (i.e. not be pasted as links or with descriptions) so it's easier for editors to discuss them. The following in my opinion contribute to WP:BASIC: 1, 2, 3, 6/7 (I'm counting these together as one reference), 8. Note 8, The Times reference, is accessible by me so perhaps trying opening it in a different browser. This reference's content is based on a Daily Beast interview (primary source) but since it is using the DB interview as a basis for its content it's secondary. Nnev66 (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have the time, please upload or share an image of The Times reference as it is not accessible on my mobile or desktop even after trying with multiple browsers. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The title of the article is "Actress threatened after hijabi porn is unveiled" and there is a picture of Ali with the caption "Ali, 24, who grew up in the United States". The article starts off with a couple of paragraphs about “hijabi porn”. Here is the content about the subject from the article:
    Nadia Ali, one of its stars, said she was “doing porn as a Pakistani woman for the liberal movement, bringing women in a scarf or a head wrap to the camera. Now it’s no longer behind closed doors.” Ali, 24, who grew up in the United States, told The Daily Beast website that she was a practising Muslim and sought to avoid explicit references to Islam in the titles of her films. “I’ve been told, ‘you’re not a Muslim, you’re a disgrace to Pakistan, Pakistan won’t accept you,’ but I do come from a Middle Eastern background and I am Muslim, not the way my parents are, but by practice,” Ali said. “For me, it’s about the Pakistani culture, not the religion,” she said. “This year I plan to do a lot of girl on girl and solo scenes to show the world that Middle Eastern girls of Pakistani descent really do get horny.” Ali and Mia Khalifa, a Lebanese adult film actress, say they have received death threats after performing dressed in a hijab. Nnev66 (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think this discussion might need a bit more time to consider whether sources provided are sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Persian revolts against Ali (656-661)

edit
Persian revolts against Ali (656-661) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NOR and WP:GNG and possibly AI generated Iranian112 (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Support per nom. R3YBOl (🌲) 19:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expand The revolts were an important part of early islamic history as well as of Iran. The article be expanded which will include the revolts which broke out after the collapse of the Sasanian Empire during the reign of Caliph Uthman and hence includes all the revolts against the Rashidun Caliphate. The title be changed as " Persian Revolts against the Rashidun Caliphate " however the article name can be negotiated later onwards.
    Legion of Liberty (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The expanding that you're working on is still not useful. you should at least try adding page numbers to the sources so it won't fail WP:V. R3YBOl (🌲) 07:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have fixed much of the important citations with page numbers and added additional sources during the process which now verifies the events with reliable sources like al tabari and also multiple other references as well as secondary references. Further work is in progress. Let me know your consensus after the changes made Legion of Liberty (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    al-tabari isn't a reliable source because he's a primary source. avoid adding primary sources, and remove al–tabari from the sources because Wikipedia doesn't tolerate primary sources. R3YBOl (🌲) 11:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concern about al - tabari being a primary source , however i have added several secondary and modern academic references such as (Touraj Daryaee, Mary Boyce, Elton Daniel, etc.) which verifies the historical context and reliability of Al-Tabari as well as the sources are not solely arab but also some persian affiliated as well as Independent sources and meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Al tabari is a primary source but (Al tabari is NOT a Primary source and) not sole one but in conjunction with reliable secondary analysis. I believe the page needs improvement rather than deletion and I'll willing contribute with a unbiased perspective. Legion of Liberty (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Muslehuddin Siddiqui

edit
Muhammad Muslehuddin Siddiqui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I did a simple Google search on this person and only found a few fan-promoted websites. The article cites nine references: sources 1 and 7 are unreliable, user-generated fandom sites; 8 and 9 are death notices about someone else, with no direct relevance; and 5 and 6 are not references at all. The only primary source (Ahmad Noori) is used twice, but it is also unverifiable. No secondary sources are present to demonstrate the significance of this person as a religious figure per Wikipedia guidelines. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Delete.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 08:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reliable secondary sources, including scholarly Islamic websites and books, document his influence as a qari, preacher, and founder of Madrasa Anwar-ul-Islam. His authored works, like Samajiyaat, further establish notability under WP:AUTHOR.
Sources 1 and 7 are not user-generated but reputable Islamic platforms; 8 and 9 are mischaracterized, as they provide context on his Barelvi contributions. Siddiqui’s cultural and religious impact in Sufism meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Zuck28 (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zuck28: Do you have any idea what secondary sources are? If you do, please share at least one. The number 1 source is https://www.thesunniway.com and number 7 is https://alahazrat.net . How did you reach the conclusion that these are reputable historical websites? What is their editorial methodology? Their very names suggest that they are fandom-style blogs run by specific groups. According to WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:USERGENERATED, such fansites are generally not acceptable as sources. The only unverifiable primary source is (Ahmad Noori). According to WP:PSTS, Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. So, in that case, we have no secondary scholarly sources to verify the topic's notability.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 17:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since one of the votes to keep is from a sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion


Others


Judaism topics

edit

Nazi gun control argument

edit
Nazi gun control argument (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be Merged into Disarmament_of_the_German_Jews#Contemporary_US_discourse_on_gun_control, where some of this content is already mentioned, but more some added detail could be included at that target. The subject matter does not necessitate a separate article from the core Disarmament of the German Jews. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is not the same topic at all and all of this would be extremely undue weight there. The core is the argument not that page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The topic could be, and should be, covered under the more general and original Gun control in Germany page. This is a much smaller sub-set of an "argument" that I think is best covered in a couple paragraphs at most in that page. Nothing about that then would be nor would need to be undue or would hold excess weight in any way. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we cover an American political argument on an article about German gun control laws? None of this material should be copied there at all. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @PARAKANYAA, I went ahead and updated the end target to Disarmament_of_the_German_Jews#Contemporary_US_discourse_on_gun_control if you still feel the same or wish to update your !vote. I feel this is a much better target for the merge and should properly address such concerns about weight and the German component. Thanks always for your insights and commentary @PARAKANYAA. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am still ambivalent, much of this sourcing seems specific to the American context, but this target is less bad so I don't object as strongly. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:PARAKANYA. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updated end target to Disarmament_of_the_German_Jews#Contemporary_US_discourse_on_gun_control if you still feel the same or wish to update your !vote. I feel this is a much better target for the merge and should properly address such concerns about weight and the German component. Thanks to @PARAKANYAA Iljhgtn (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the article Disarmament of the German Jews. This article in its current state contains WP:EXCESSDETAIL about this one subject which is covered in multiple articles with considerable depth. The "Disarmament of the German Jews" article has a section titled "Contemporary US discourse on gun control" which lays WP:UNDUE weight on the side of the argument that opines that the armament of Jews would have no consequential impact i.e the criticism. That section is filled with cruft and can be remodelled to be more inclusive of the argument itself without going out of scope.
In conclusion, I agree that this subject is not worthy of a stand-alone article, but I differ on where it could be merged. Kvinnen (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this suggestion. After looking at both, this is in fact a much better end target for the Merge. Updated the nom accordingly. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per @PARAKANYAA. As the article states, historians and fact-checkers seem to agree that pro-gun organizations like the NRA cherry picked aspects of the history of gun regulations in Nazi Germany and the disarmament of German Jews as a means to deter further regulation on the sales of firearms. The claim's only connection to the actual historical events themselves, is an Association fallacy for which the claim is based on. Merging it with these other articles would only seem to further legitimatize what is more logically defined as a Red herring. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is meant to summarize, not necessarily cover everything that has sources WP:SCOPE. The fact that this article even exists is WP:UNDUE. This subject can be more than sufficiently and evenly summarized at "Contemporary US discourse on gun control" in the page Disarmament of the German Jews. This article, in essence, provides some sort of a "reception" about what is already covered in Disarmament of the German Jews and is definitely not substantial enough for it to be a disengaged stand-alone. Kvinnen (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that this article even exists is WP:UNDUE.
    Your UNDUE/POV claim ignores the fact that this article attempts to reflect the mainstream consensus by experts that it is a debunked and false argument.
    If you wish to argue that it's mere existence as a standalone article is somehow evidence of non-neutrality, then you are required to provide sources demonstrating the consensus among mainstream experts that it is a legitimate conclusion as opposed to a form of elementary level Guilt by association.
    "This article, in essence, provides some sort of a "reception" about what is already covered in Disarmament of the German Jews and is definitely not substantial enough for it to be a disengaged stand-alone.
    Frankly, it's mention in Disarmament of the German Jews seems to be the real culprit here, in terms of what is UNDUE...Cheers. DN (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Keep Well sourced and I think its notable enough to deserve its own article, despite suggestions of possible merge targets. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lviv rabbis

edit
List of Lviv rabbis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NLIST. The list is unsourced, lacks a lead, and most of the entries are non-notable. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mati Shemoelof

edit
Mati Shemoelof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No substantial independent coverage. The mentioned award is from a non-notable website. Largoplazo (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Mati Shemoelof is an established author and poet with a significant body of work published in both Israel and Germany. He has published 12 books, including poetry, prose, and essays, and his work spans multiple languages and cultures.

Shemoelof has written regular columns for leading publications such as Haaretz and Israel Hayom in Israel, The Jewish Independent in Australia, and currently writes for Berliner Zeitung in Germany. His writings and literary contributions have been covered by major media outlets, including The New York Times and prominent German newspapers.

In addition to his existing publications, Shemoelof is set to release his first book in English next year, along with a new book written in German to be published in Germany.

Given his international presence, ongoing literary activity, and the recognition he has received across various media platforms, deleting his Wikipedia page would overlook the notability and relevance of his work. His contributions to literature and journalism are well-documented, diverse, and continue to have a global impact. מתיאל (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't directly consider a person's work to make its own evaluation as to their notability. You need to establish his notability by showing where he has received elsewhere, in reliable sources, the sort of attention you're saying he should receive here. See WP:Notability. Largoplazo (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is a widely published author and poet whose work has been recognized in both academic scholarship and international media. His literary contributions have received independent, sustained attention across multiple years and languages.
Academic References
His work is discussed in Rachel Seelig’s monograph Strangers in Berlin: Modern Jewish Literature between East and West, 1919–1933 (University of Michigan Press, 2016), which situates his writing within the broader context of Jewish literary modernism in Berlin.
Link: https://press.umich.edu/Books/S/Strangers-in-Berlin
In the Brill volume Pillars of Salt: Israelis in Berlin and Toronto (2019), Chapter 3 describes him as “one of the more prolific Israeli literates in Berlin,” underscoring his importance in diasporic Israeli writing.
Link: https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004413816/BP000014.xml
His prose piece The Berlin Prize for Hebrew Literature was included in the De Gruyter volume The German-Hebrew Dialogue (2017), edited by Amir Eshel and Rachel Seelig, confirming his direct engagement with scholarly literary discourse.
Link: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110499620/html
Israel Studies Review (Vol. 39, Issue 3, 2024) published an article that analyzes his engagement with German literary culture and examines his role within Berlin’s Hebrew-writing community.
Link: https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/israel-studies-review/39/3/isr390309.xml
The article “The ‘return’ of a diasporic Hebrew literary culture in Berlin” (Jewish Culture and History, 2021) identifies him as a key Mizrahi author shaping the revival of Hebrew literature in Germany.
Link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1462169X.2021.1917059
Non-Academic & Media Coverage
Haaretz (1 May 2023) featured his work prominently in an article on Hebrew writers in Berlin, presenting him as part of a historical literary moment.
Link: https://www.haaretz.com/life/books/2023-05-01/ty-article/.premium/berlins-hebrew-writers-are-making-history/00000188-7e02-dc9c-a3db-ff7b7d640000
The Jewish Independent (2023) published his essay “A Language I Do Not Speak,” in which he reflects on questions of identity, migration, and literature in Berlin.
Link: https://www.thejewishindependent.com.au/a-language-i-do-not-speak/
His curated author profile on Literaturport, Berlin’s official literary portal, confirms his recognition as an established figure within the German literary field.
Link: https://www.literaturport.de/mati-shemoelof/
He was interviewed by the New Books Network (2021) about his book The Prize (Pardes), an international platform that engages with significant new contributions to world literature.
Link: https://newbooksnetwork.com/the-prize
Conclusion
Taken together, these references demonstrate:
Independent scholarly attention from major academic presses and peer-reviewed journals.
Sustained coverage across time (2016–2024), indicating enduring relevance.
Cultural and literary impact documented in prominent international media and Berlin’s literary institutions.
The subject therefore meets the notability criteria through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. For these reasons, the deletion proposal should be withdrawn. מתיאל (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC) מתיאל[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful for other editors to review these new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Sikhism

edit

Pajeet

edit


Pajeet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Largely trivial coverage in sources (RS or otherwise), fails WP:SIGCOV for notability esecially for a racial slur like this. The exact article (with the same sources) has been repeatedly created from a redirect by the singular WP:LTA sock network Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial ([65], [66], [67], [68]) whose intentions have been nothing more than racist trolling ([69], [70]). The article itself has only served as a racist troll magnet whenever it has been repeatedly created ([71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]). Edit: And 15 more accounts have just been banned for disruption related to the article since this AfD has been up ([81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97] and 12 more).

Coming to the sources (currently/previously at the article/Talk):

We ultimately have very few RS which cover the term in any significant capacity, a standalone article as such cannot really be justified (nothing which can't be/isn't already covered at List of ethnic slurs). The slur is no different from more older ones (e.g. 1, e.g. 2) whose standalone articles we do not feature for similar reasons. Gotitbro (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The article has been considerably improved in good faith and as per @Ratnahastin WP:SIGCOV has been sufficiently addressed.
I must say, it is of interesting note that a user has just been blocked for vandalizing the article as we are actively discussing this.. Eulersidentity (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - The term "Pajeet" is highly notable and has received in-depth coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources:
  • In a case study by Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers University, this term is covered extensively, with almost entire study revolving around it. 33 mentions of the slur , along with his history, usage, variants etc all are covered over several pages.[103]
  • In a report by Rohit Chopra, Professor in the Department of Communication at Santa Clara University and Visiting Scholar at the Center for South Asia at Stanford University, the term is covered extensively and it is published by the Centre of study of organized hate[104]
  • Non trivial coverage in a report by Institute for Strategic Dialogue [105]
  • Extensive coverage in DFRAC , an IFCN certified fact checker. This report covers the origin, and history of the term along with analysis of its usage on social media. [106]
  • Significant coverage in a Global Project Against Hate and Extremism  (GPAHE) study [107]

Enough to prove that this term is highly notable and has received scholarly attention. It has also been used as an insult against various public figures of Indian origin in the west as well and there is ample news coverage for that, but I won't be citing that. Ratnahastin (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The review of sources in the nomination is appalling. With your logic, we can reject any sources such as CNN ("they are favorable to Democrats"), Oxford University press ("they are situated in the mainland of colonial British empire") or any other source. Sikhpride38 (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, entirely apalling that we don't consider thecommunemag.com (samvadaworld.com), hindupost.in, hindutimescanada.ca, Know Your Meme, townpost.in, baaznews as RS nor trivial mentions of the term. None of the rationale that you cite has been given above. Interesting that an account, with only 11 edits, that hasn't edited in 3 years suddenly pops up at an AfD and then proceeds to revert SPA tags. Gotitbro (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is defending unreliable sources like Hindupost ans Communemag. You are doubting credibility of even DFRAC, Online Hate Prevention Institute, The Daily Pennsylvanian and other reliable sources. According to your logic, there can be no reliable sources. Sikhpride38 (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For DFRAC, I could not find any independent coverage of it as a source beyond media reposts of its 'fact-checks', the Online Hate Prevention Institute lacks a byline and has a single-line mention of the term, The Daily Pennsylvanian is a student newspaper with barely anything to say about the term. Hence, under unsure reliability. These are not the sources that you want to be hedging notability on.
I will note that you have repeatedly reverted the SPA tag added by different editors, very COI. Gotitbro (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I refuse to defend myself against a mischaracterization? Looks like you don't understand what is a "COI". Back to the actual topic, you are just proving the point that every source would seem unreliable if we used your logic. The Daily Pennsylvanian is used in 100s of Wikipedia article.[108] Sikhpride38 (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Pennsylvanian: Usage elsewhere at enwiki has no bearing on why student newspapers should be cited in the first place, lacks sigcov anyhow.
Conflict of interest is removing tags added by uninvolved editors in a contentious topic space. Does not help that a new user with barely a few edits is well versed with AfDs, SPA and COI. I further wonder why you think this is neutral, seemingly furthering racist tropes without any balance. Gotitbro (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have only responded to some editors about clarifications for the nom statement, ridiculous to call this BLUDGEON. Gotitbro (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Religion&oldid=1308703510"