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. 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.

Purge page cache

watch

Pope Bob (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 think this should be redirected to Leo XIV as the primary topic. The current pope is regularly referred to as "Pope Bob" by media outlets, and thus readers searching that name are most likely to be looking for Leo XIV at present. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Christianity, Disambiguations, Italy, Peru, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Seems to be a fairly clean case of WP:PTOPIC. Most mentions of "Pope Bob" are referring to Leo XIV. Nahida 🌷 00:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This was also a (slightly ironic) nickname for Robert G. Ingersoll. [1] I'm too tired to add add it to the article/dab, but with three potential subjects, we're looking more at moving than redirecting, right? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 00:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Added to article and page. Thanks for the cite. I agree. Move first to Pope Bob (disambiguation) and then redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Piette (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 page is pretty much a list of the man's works with no other analysis of the subject matter. There's no section on his personal life, views, etc. Would be OK revoking this RFD if these concerns were addressed but with the article as is, I don't know if this is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 13:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Religion. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 13:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to easily pass WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. I disagree with the idea that "analysis of the subject matter" requires us to have sections on his personal life or views. For an article about an influential academic/author, a list of notable works and an explanation of their contribution to their field of scholarship is exactly what an article should contain. In terms of notability, I found at least two journal articles directly addressing his body of work: Albert Piette and lived (non-)religion: Conceptual and methodological considerations and The Minor Mode: Albert Piette and the Reshaping of Anthropology. I expect that there is much more to be found in French. An extremely cursory search also turned up a large number of reviews of his books [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], giving him a pass of NAUTHOR criteria 3. MCE89 (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Understood. But that begs the question, why were those sources not added in the first place? Surely the person who created the article should have done their research and added them if they're as reliable as you say they are. Or perhaps there's a good reason why they weren't there. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 14:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, the article was created in 2009. The standards for article quality and for notability were very different back then, and none of the sources I linked above had even been written yet at that point. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at when you say "perhaps there's a good reason why they weren't there". Are you suggesting that I'm somehow misrepresenting the sources? MCE89 (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No I am not. And the sources not existing at the time is a good reason for them not to have been cited in the article, thanks for bringing that up! Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 19:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Book reviews in the comment above are enough to pass AUTHOR and likely scholarly/academic notability. This person is indexed in 8 national libraries, also hinting at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and to the nom, WP:SOFIXIT (or at least conduct a good WP:BEFORE) prior to attempting to delete an article that clearly plausibly asserts notability. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Notability as an academic is low, h-index is low [10]. Number of books doesn't qualify for being a monumental amount of work. Not widely cited by peers. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Vaughn Finley Sr. (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)

Have conducted a WP:BEFORE search and unable to find any real evidence of notability. Almost exclusively WP:SPS or unreliable. The only source worth anything is Flynn (The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief), but it's a very brief mention (about 40 words). Does not meet WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Atheism, and United States of America. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Radio, Television, Military, Internet, Alabama, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), New York, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see notability yet for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. I can't see enough notability either, and the article is too reliant on primary sources. Went up in 2004, and looks like one of those that escaped scrutiny in the days when the article creation/assessment process was less advanced. Leonstojka (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are plenty of web pages pro and con about his skeptic activity but I wasn't convinced by the reliability of any of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 papal conclave papabili (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)

See discussion for previous conclave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave. Lists like these are highly speculative and barely deserve mention in other articles, and certainly do not deserve their own article. This does not pass the WP:CRYSTALBALL WP:10YEARTEST. It's always contain by its very nature WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The argument will be made that people are looking for this information, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. In two weeks this article will mean nothing. There will not be any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE after the conclave finishes. If anything it should have some candidates in prose at 2025 papal conclave, or maybe a table at Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an WP:Eventualist, I can assure that there there shall be analyses of the analyses.

And for context: consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this, and if anything, it should be in prose, in the article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Religion, and Christianity. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Subject is receiving massive attention in the global press/media and easily passes GNG. It will almost certainly merit inclusion long term, either as a stand alone article or being merged into the main article on the conclave. How can you have a serious article about a papal conclave w/o discussing the various possible successors? Beyond which, as a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE, the vast majority of those coming to Wikipedia over the conclave are going to be looking for information about the various papabili. Removing this kind of well sourced content would be a serious disservice to our readers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ad Orientem: This sort of list is definitely WP:USEFUL, but almost certainly not encyclopedic. As stated in my !vote below, this is above all else a matter of original research in compiling what boils down to Wikipedia's own curated list of frontrunners, which is not something we should have as an encyclopedia. If readers want to read about potential frontrunners (which, I stress, can be no more than speculative), they should simply peruse their news source of choice. The only encyclopedic list we can curate already exists at Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is that the elector cardinals is a well-defined set and the set of papabili is not. I've only found (and cited) one analysis of the criteria in play. kencf0618 (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: to me, the claim by User:Darth Stabro that "consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this" is only in the context of the papabili section of the 2025 papal conclave article itself; there was never any consensus about some speculative table existing elsewhere in Wikipedia on that particular talk page. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• But Delete. Let me copy what I said about the problems with the list of papabili in the Papabili section of the 2013 papal conclave article in Talk:2025 papal conclave#Who is eligible to be listed as Papabili? since it equally applies to the article here: The point of papabili sections and articles and lists of papabili in the papal conclave articles is to document which cardinals the media considers to be likely candidates for being the next pope. We should require reliable secondary sources on the topic of the media's papabili, not just links to random media outlets' lists of papabili. That is, any cardinal X can be included in a list of the media's papabili on Wikipedia if a reliable secondary source says something along the lines of "the media said that cardinal X is a likely candidate in [YEAR] papal conclave". The problem with the list of the media's papabile in this article is that none of the references are reliable secondary sources about the media's papabile; it's all just synthesis / original research using primary sources. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The National Catholic Reporter just published a survey of the media; this counts as a secondary source, I think. https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/meet-12-men-who-could-be-pope

kencf0618 (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the 2025 papal conclave. Perhaps it would be best to merge the two articles because it would be most prudent for the future. M.VIPSANIUS.AGRIPPA (talk)
• Keep: Per Ad Orientem. Times have changed and we are getting way more hits on the article than 2013. Papabili are discussed everywhere and hence, it's not OR or SYNTH. There will not be any coverage after conclave itself is a projected prediction and hence COMMONSENSE takes precedence, IMO. — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2025 papal conclave as WP:RECENTISM not warranting splitting. After the conclave and new pope, the papabili list would no longer be actual and of limited interest IMO. Brandmeister^talk 08:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2025 papal conclave: No other papal conclave has an article dedicated to its papabili. If no other conclave's papabili have merited their own article, despite having notable papabili, then this should not be any different. I cannot see this information being pertinent once a new Pope is selected. WP:NOTNEWS Flangalanger (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't really a great argument in AfD. Those conclaves could just as easily have a list created for them if the sourcing exists. RachelTensions (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it has enough media attention and merging it back into the main article would continue the war Braganza (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  i am fine with merging it into Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave Braganza (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or merge): the main problem with such a list isn't that papabili are not notable in and of themselves, it's simply that there is no subjective way we could determine who counts as one. As stated above, it would be blatantly original research for us to handpick sources to use and then impose an arbitrary threshold on the number of sources (e.g. seven). What this means is that this article is basically Wikipedia's own curated list of frontrunners. This is inappropriate because of WP:OR and because we are not a newspaper. For avoidance of doubt, I don't object to talking about papabili at all, simply that all we need is a paragraph in 2025 papal conclave saying: "news source X listed [...] as papabili, and news source Y also listed [...]" – that is as much as we are allowed to do as an encyclopedia. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If a merge is what is decided on, I would propose as a target not 2025 papal conclave, but Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. That is where a similar table existed prior to the creation of this article, and the existence of a table has already been rehashed several times and shot down in favor of prose at Talk:2025 papal conclave ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 12:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I am not convinced that media speculation about who might be pope is of lasting interest. And as we all know, "he who goes into the conclave a pope comes out a cardinal." Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep if it can't exist on the 2025 conclave page, and it can't exist on the papabile page, it has to exist somewhere. Scuba 14:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to exist somewhere? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it was only removed from the Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave page to create this page. So it would be false to say it wasn't existing anywhere. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just stating that nobody is going to care about these people in the future is crystalballing and not a reason to delete the article. Cortador (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2025 papal conclave - While the nomination seems to be WP:CRYSTAL at best, I do agree that it would make more sense to put the table in the article itself, rather than a separate page. JTZegers (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and oppose merge if deleted. Section was already removed from the 2025 papal conclave page after discussion, but receives enough coverage for it's own page Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge I don't see why the 2013 page was deleted either honestly.★Trekker (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteThis is pure speculation and the list is generated out of pure synthesis. Carbon case of WP:NOT. None of the presented keep arguments is supported by policy.Tvx1 07:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sometimes I'm baffled by the 'shifting sands' of notability arguments here. Sourced articles from a number of different sources about the selection of the next Pope shouldn't be the target of deletion. Surely this article is exactly what Wikipedia should be collating? Current, important, notable: it passes the "Pokémon test". But maybe it's just the state of Wikipedia now, where deletion is the standard and building an encyclopedia has become unfashionable. doktorb _words^deeds 07:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep WP:SYNTH is moot; our sources are journalism and gambling. WP:UNDUE is moot; we have one cited 2015 peer-reviewed study (Forecasting the outcome of closed-door decisions; evidence from 500 years of papal conclaves) and one 2020 book. And Fantapapa. And a plethora of citations. WP:Recentism, WP:NotNews, and WP:CrystalBall are moot; historically some papabili carry over. Our criteria variously conflict, hence the circular firing squad of recent days. That said, we can't not use the data available; you dance with them that brungs ya. kencf0618 (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2025 papal conclave : I don't really see why it has to be its own page. If there isn't a separate page for the papabili in the other conclaves, then where's the point in this page existing? Just because it's the latest one doesn't necessarily mean it's more important. HOPPIO [talk] 14:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (to supplement my !vote above): The problem with this article isn't that papabili aren't notable; they definitely are. A good reason why we shouldn't have a list of them is because there is simply no objective inclusion criteria for the cardinals who should appear here. WP:LISTCRITERIA states that the criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. Simply put, even with the current state of this list, there are many other cardinals for whom we could easily find more than seven references, and we can never be sure that we have listed them all. In my opinion, this list doesn't belong in an encyclopedia but in a newspaper, and a newspaper we are not. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we shouldn't have a list of them, then why have them in prose?

kencf0618 (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to 2025 papal conclave per the merge comments above. Sundayclose (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge to the 2025 papal conclave. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, no need for a separate article. Nevermore27 (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Some Background Each papal conclave from 1939 onwards has a papabile section. I'm working up an omnibus table (revamping the List of papal conclaves) for ease of reference in my sandbox, starting at 1903. Just adding up the cited names the number of papabile are are, respectively, 0,0,0, nine or more than twelve, 5, 10, 2, 2, 8, and TBD. Would this table be subject to Afd? Apply the same logic. kencf0618 (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2025 papal conclave per WP:NOPAGE. Graham (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have no doubt a Pope will be elected before anything can be done about this article and when one is, the list becomes basically irrelevant. The article should not outlive the conclave itself.Amyzex (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2025 papal conclave per WP:NOPAGE. I'll also take a moment to note my opinion that some sort of actual list in the article is fine. I don't want my merge vote to be used as a cudgel against any editor with an interest in writing about papabile. Wikipedians with a greater interest in the subject can in fact come up with a guideline for inclusion that does not require original research. I believe Wikipedia is a work in progress and it is fine for names to be added to and fall off such a list over time.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or merge with 2025 papal conclave.) I understand the instinct that we shouldn't be mucking about in the weeds here making judgement calls about who gets on the list. On other elections pages these choices are commonplace: what states/seats do you characterize as 'swing', what prognosticator's election ratings are notable enough to include in a table, or, most relevant here, who are the main candidates in a future election. See: 2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries (Ugh, what an unwieldy list). We have to make judgement calls sometimes, and I think the seven source requirement is a decent measure of whether someone is considered a frontrunner. Side note: without this page existing, 2025 papal conclave and Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave will go right back to getting constant edits adding, removing, tweaking the papabili list. Having it here makes it more manageable. If it balloons at least it isn't harming the other two pages. TheSavageNorwegian 19:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only who are the primary (and secondary and tertiary, as applicable) prospects, but who were; cardinals carry over from conclave to conclave and American political candidates from election cycle to election cycle, after all. kencf0618 (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Thriley (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is not necessary and can be in other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bte3000 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not necessary. If the 2013 edition could be deleted, this should. The 2013 papabili was more notable in my opinion. João^hola 18:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally unpredictable! Please wait with writing about this until after the conclave. Happytravels (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an WP:Eventualist, I can assure you there shall be analyses of the analyses. kencf0618 (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, mere speculation. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - literally dozens of reliable sources from around the world, showing significant coverage. It's non-stop coverage on all the networks, newspapers, and webs. Bearian (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Do all the sources list the same cardinals as frontrunners? If not, we can't curate our own list as this page does. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the stand-alone article, merge key information. Like the list articles created for previous papal conclaves, this one is highly speculative, and fails multiple Wikipedia standards, as noted above. Drdpw (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge This is way to much for just speculation to have a standalone article with this much detail. Merging to Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave is quite appropriate because it already has the same columns for country, position, and date created cardinal, allowing for a simpler presentation. Reywas92^Talk 16:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. I think there is value (that passes WP:10YEARTEST) in tracking papabili, as it reflects divisions and issues within the church. It is similar to tracking discussed candidates for political elections. That said, a separate article is overkill, and likely incomplete given that so many of the electors are discussed as papabili. So why not merge this with the electors article, perhaps just by adding a column to the table of electors tracking references for papabili discussion? Mgruhn (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per others' arguments. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something?) 20:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2025 papal conclave: It makes more sense to have one detailed article about the subject than many undetailed articles. And why should this one have a papabili article when no other conclave has one? Hlsci (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - This is a solid article on candidates, one which holds its place among articles on the Catholic Church. Although a merger back into the 2025 papal conclave wouldn't be that harmful, this is a good standard to set on candidates for Pope, and I would love to see even more detail here. It could even be expanded in the future, with historical detail. PickleG13 (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2025 papal conclave. There is definitely some good sourced material worth keeping here, and it can be incorporated into the article on the conclave itself, but having a separate article is WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Extreme Keep: This is major news and people deserve to be reading about who may become the next pope so this should not be deleted under any circumstances. Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with 2025 papal conclave. Short=term info, e.g. election candidates, horses, is trivial after the event. WP:EVENT has relevant issues.
• Keep: There is enough sources to justify a stand alone article. Lightoil (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge into 2025 papal conclave. If the table/list is based on published WP:RSes, then it should be considered encyclopedic, much like electoral polling is relevant to election articles, and odds are relevant to sporting event articles. The existence and coverage of public speculation is factual; that's different than the speculations being themselves facts. (We have articles on God, not because there is consensus that God is true, but that there is consensus that people believe in God.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are plenty of reliable sources, but they are all WP:OR or WP:PRIMARY. In order to have any sort of proper, Wikipedia page on the topic, we would need articles reporting on who articles are calling papabili - not the articles calling people papabili themselves. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete extremely speculative with no concrete definition of who is considered papabili. Baseless media speculation should not be an article, just as we don't have people considered likely to win the 2028 United States Presidential Election. At most a merge to main article if there is anything of substance here. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with deleting this article, but to be fair, we do have articles about primary elections and the vice presidential shortlists. Flangalanger (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per others; article contains information useful in the 2025 Papal Conclave page (or the cardinal electors page) for popular speculation on who we all thought the next pope would be, but we are not the news nor are we a speculation site. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 01:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave per WP:NOPAGE (the information is already in the prose at 2025 papal conclave). We use editorial judgement whether a stand-alone page should be created or whether the information is best incorporated into another page. In this case, the nom is correct, the list was highly speculative and would not pass WP:10Y. --Enos733 (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any consensus here and I think arguments might change now that the decision has been made and made quickly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2025 papal conclave#Papabili. These cardinals weren't declared candidates in a political election and shouldn't be presented in a way that makes them look as though they were. Rather, they were the subject of media speculation as potential contenders to be elected, which is notable enough to be mentioned in an appropriate article but not a reasonable selection for an article of its own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to 2025 papal conclave. Yes, it passes GNG, but it doesn't show long-term notability. There's also the OR issue. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pujniya Raseshwari Devi (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)

Her only notable work is "involvement in the idol installation ceremonies" of some temples. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and fails wp:GNG / wp:ANYBIO. Zuck28 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Hinduism, India, Chhattisgarh, and Odisha. Zuck28 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reginald Vaughn Finley Sr. (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)

Have conducted a WP:BEFORE search and unable to find any real evidence of notability. Almost exclusively WP:SPS or unreliable. The only source worth anything is Flynn (The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief), but it's a very brief mention (about 40 words). Does not meet WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Atheism, and United States of America. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Radio, Television, Military, Internet, Alabama, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), New York, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see notability yet for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. I can't see enough notability either, and the article is too reliant on primary sources. Went up in 2004, and looks like one of those that escaped scrutiny in the days when the article creation/assessment process was less advanced. Leonstojka (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are plenty of web pages pro and con about his skeptic activity but I wasn't convinced by the reliability of any of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of games that Buddha would not play (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 notable whatsoever, can easily be merged into Buddha if it were notable Benedictions, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Buddhism. Benedictions, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete provides no benefit as a list. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Buddha per nom (WP:NOTSTATS) JTZegers (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:NOTSTATS apply here? I don't see the relation. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It doesn't appear there are any new reasons to claim non-notability that weren't raised last time, and just repeating the nomination to seek a different result isn't good practice. The same list occurs in multiple distinct locations in the canon, indicating that it is a distinct thing in itself and not just a random point of doctrine on the same level as any other. It has also been discussed in multiple sources other than Buddhism-related sources, as having historical interest of a broader kind, in particular as the earliest reference to blindfold chess (or a predecessor thereof). Again, this is interest in the thing itself not only as part of one bigger thing, so there is reason for it to have an article of its own. And that interest is not served by just mentioning the fact that there is a list; the historical interest benefits from seeing the list itself. It is not "statistics"; I don't know how WP:NOTSTATS would be relevant. And because this list is closed - it is not expected to have items added or deleted in the future - it does not have some of the practical problems that lists in Wikipedia often have. Consider whether the Seven deadly sins ought to be merged into Jesus; it's not clear there is a qualitative difference. 2607:FEA8:1280:5D00:0:0:0:CAD1 (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)— 2607:FEA8:1280:5D00:0:0:0:CAD1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  This is not like a comparison between the seven deadly sins and Jesus, this is like a comparison between "Foods that Jesus would not eat" and Jesus. Benedictions, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether a better analogy exists isn't a deletion criterion. Neither is the number of edits I have made, nor someone's opinion of whether the Buddha had bigger things to worry about than what the Pali Canon says he taught. What can be said about actual deletion criteria? 2607:FEA8:1280:5D00:0:0:0:CAD1 (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is nothing useful for merging. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is pointless and its accuracy is questionable at best. The buddha had bigger things to worry about than hopscotch and charades. 128.148.204.3 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The subject is notable, the sourcing isn't stellar but seems sufficient to establish notability. The deletion rationale is really weak and nothing has changed since the last nomination. I do question whether this is most appropriately presented as a list, and I wonder if that is contributing to the repeated nomination. An article with the list as its subject seems more appropriate. (For example its Ten commandments, not List of commandments given to Moses.) AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 2607. jp×g🗯️ 04:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep interesting page with enough sourcing to appear valid. Doesn’t directly pertain to either games or Buddha and would be a distraction on either site. 02:16, 10 May 2025 (EST)

Pope Bob (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 think this should be redirected to Leo XIV as the primary topic. The current pope is regularly referred to as "Pope Bob" by media outlets, and thus readers searching that name are most likely to be looking for Leo XIV at present. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Christianity, Disambiguations, Italy, Peru, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Seems to be a fairly clean case of WP:PTOPIC. Most mentions of "Pope Bob" are referring to Leo XIV. Nahida 🌷 00:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This was also a (slightly ironic) nickname for Robert G. Ingersoll. [11] I'm too tired to add add it to the article/dab, but with three potential subjects, we're looking more at moving than redirecting, right? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 00:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Added to article and page. Thanks for the cite. I agree. Move first to Pope Bob (disambiguation) and then redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Moore Vidyapith, Mavelikkara (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)

A merge to Kallumala#Education was contested, but as a new page reviewer I could not find any WP:SIGCOV of this school to warrant a pass WP:GNG, just WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA stories ([12]) that read as promo. The sources in the article are solely the school's own website. Encyclopedic content has already been merged, so I am seeking consensus to restore a redirect to Kallumala#Education. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Kerala. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A simiar search reveals no WP:SGCOV in the literature or news outlets. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL without any reliable independent coverage. --hroest 14:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (I boldly performed the limited merge): independent sigcov not found. Redirection to location is a standard WP:ATD for schools where article is not retained (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful as Ever (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)

Redirect to Forrest Frank discography. Despite charting, the song is not covered in reliable sources, thus failing WP:NSONG. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 00:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. No WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Heschmeyer (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 evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The only example of third-party coverage is this 2020 interview in a Catholic magazine. JTtheOG (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Kansas. JTtheOG (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There are also a handful of, often brief, book reviews, but it doesn't look hopeful[13][14][15] Jahaza (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Mizell (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 WP:ROTM American pastor/businessman. Promotional page (WP:PEACOCK) that appears like an advertorial CV (WP:NOT). Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I would have PROD'ed this, utterly non-notable person. Reads like a CV/resume. I'm not sure this is appropriate for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:BASIC. This reads like a press release. Six of the seven sources appear to be his own publications. The seventh is from his church, so he likely wrote that also. — Maile (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 01:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable and reads like a promotional resume. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Reads like a CV/Resume, promotional article and totally non-notable person. Sources are only self-published. Fails WP:NBASIC, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:PROMO. If this wasn't at AfD it may well qualify for G11 speedy deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 papal conclave papabili (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)

See discussion for previous conclave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave. Lists like these are highly speculative and barely deserve mention in other articles, and certainly do not deserve their own article. This does not pass the WP:CRYSTALBALL WP:10YEARTEST. It's always contain by its very nature WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The argument will be made that people are looking for this information, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. In two weeks this article will mean nothing. There will not be any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE after the conclave finishes. If anything it should have some candidates in prose at 2025 papal conclave, or maybe a table at Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an WP:Eventualist, I can assure that there there shall be analyses of the analyses.

And for context: consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this, and if anything, it should be in prose, in the article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Religion, and Christianity. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Subject is receiving massive attention in the global press/media and easily passes GNG. It will almost certainly merit inclusion long term, either as a stand alone article or being merged into the main article on the conclave. How can you have a serious article about a papal conclave w/o discussing the various possible successors? Beyond which, as a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE, the vast majority of those coming to Wikipedia over the conclave are going to be looking for information about the various papabili. Removing this kind of well sourced content would be a serious disservice to our readers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ad Orientem: This sort of list is definitely WP:USEFUL, but almost certainly not encyclopedic. As stated in my !vote below, this is above all else a matter of original research in compiling what boils down to Wikipedia's own curated list of frontrunners, which is not something we should have as an encyclopedia. If readers want to read about potential frontrunners (which, I stress, can be no more than speculative), they should simply peruse their news source of choice. The only encyclopedic list we can curate already exists at Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is that the elector cardinals is a well-defined set and the set of papabili is not. I've only found (and cited) one analysis of the criteria in play. kencf0618 (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: to me, the claim by User:Darth Stabro that "consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this" is only in the context of the papabili section of the 2025 papal conclave article itself; there was never any consensus about some speculative table existing elsewhere in Wikipedia on that particular talk page. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• But Delete. Let me copy what I said about the problems with the list of papabili in the Papabili section of the 2013 papal conclave article in Talk:2025 papal conclave#Who is eligible to be listed as Papabili? since it equally applies to the article here: The point of papabili sections and articles and lists of papabili in the papal conclave articles is to document which cardinals the media considers to be likely candidates for being the next pope. We should require reliable secondary sources on the topic of the media's papabili, not just links to random media outlets' lists of papabili. That is, any cardinal X can be included in a list of the media's papabili on Wikipedia if a reliable secondary source says something along the lines of "the media said that cardinal X is a likely candidate in [YEAR] papal conclave". The problem with the list of the media's papabile in this article is that none of the references are reliable secondary sources about the media's papabile; it's all just synthesis / original research using primary sources. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The National Catholic Reporter just published a survey of the media; this counts as a secondary source, I think. https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/meet-12-men-who-could-be-pope

kencf0618 (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the 2025 papal conclave. Perhaps it would be best to merge the two articles because it would be most prudent for the future. M.VIPSANIUS.AGRIPPA (talk)
• Keep: Per Ad Orientem. Times have changed and we are getting way more hits on the article than 2013. Papabili are discussed everywhere and hence, it's not OR or SYNTH. There will not be any coverage after conclave itself is a projected prediction and hence COMMONSENSE takes precedence, IMO. — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2025 papal conclave as WP:RECENTISM not warranting splitting. After the conclave and new pope, the papabili list would no longer be actual and of limited interest IMO. Brandmeister^talk 08:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2025 papal conclave: No other papal conclave has an article dedicated to its papabili. If no other conclave's papabili have merited their own article, despite having notable papabili, then this should not be any different. I cannot see this information being pertinent once a new Pope is selected. WP:NOTNEWS Flangalanger (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't really a great argument in AfD. Those conclaves could just as easily have a list created for them if the sourcing exists. RachelTensions (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it has enough media attention and merging it back into the main article would continue the war Braganza (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  i am fine with merging it into Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave Braganza (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or merge): the main problem with such a list isn't that papabili are not notable in and of themselves, it's simply that there is no subjective way we could determine who counts as one. As stated above, it would be blatantly original research for us to handpick sources to use and then impose an arbitrary threshold on the number of sources (e.g. seven). What this means is that this article is basically Wikipedia's own curated list of frontrunners. This is inappropriate because of WP:OR and because we are not a newspaper. For avoidance of doubt, I don't object to talking about papabili at all, simply that all we need is a paragraph in 2025 papal conclave saying: "news source X listed [...] as papabili, and news source Y also listed [...]" – that is as much as we are allowed to do as an encyclopedia. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If a merge is what is decided on, I would propose as a target not 2025 papal conclave, but Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. That is where a similar table existed prior to the creation of this article, and the existence of a table has already been rehashed several times and shot down in favor of prose at Talk:2025 papal conclave ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 12:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I am not convinced that media speculation about who might be pope is of lasting interest. And as we all know, "he who goes into the conclave a pope comes out a cardinal." Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep if it can't exist on the 2025 conclave page, and it can't exist on the papabile page, it has to exist somewhere. Scuba 14:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to exist somewhere? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it was only removed from the Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave page to create this page. So it would be false to say it wasn't existing anywhere. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just stating that nobody is going to care about these people in the future is crystalballing and not a reason to delete the article. Cortador (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2025 papal conclave - While the nomination seems to be WP:CRYSTAL at best, I do agree that it would make more sense to put the table in the article itself, rather than a separate page. JTZegers (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and oppose merge if deleted. Section was already removed from the 2025 papal conclave page after discussion, but receives enough coverage for it's own page Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge I don't see why the 2013 page was deleted either honestly.★Trekker (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteThis is pure speculation and the list is generated out of pure synthesis. Carbon case of WP:NOT. None of the presented keep arguments is supported by policy.Tvx1 07:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sometimes I'm baffled by the 'shifting sands' of notability arguments here. Sourced articles from a number of different sources about the selection of the next Pope shouldn't be the target of deletion. Surely this article is exactly what Wikipedia should be collating? Current, important, notable: it passes the "Pokémon test". But maybe it's just the state of Wikipedia now, where deletion is the standard and building an encyclopedia has become unfashionable. doktorb _words^deeds 07:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep WP:SYNTH is moot; our sources are journalism and gambling. WP:UNDUE is moot; we have one cited 2015 peer-reviewed study (Forecasting the outcome of closed-door decisions; evidence from 500 years of papal conclaves) and one 2020 book. And Fantapapa. And a plethora of citations. WP:Recentism, WP:NotNews, and WP:CrystalBall are moot; historically some papabili carry over. Our criteria variously conflict, hence the circular firing squad of recent days. That said, we can't not use the data available; you dance with them that brungs ya. kencf0618 (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2025 papal conclave : I don't really see why it has to be its own page. If there isn't a separate page for the papabili in the other conclaves, then where's the point in this page existing? Just because it's the latest one doesn't necessarily mean it's more important. HOPPIO [talk] 14:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (to supplement my !vote above): The problem with this article isn't that papabili aren't notable; they definitely are. A good reason why we shouldn't have a list of them is because there is simply no objective inclusion criteria for the cardinals who should appear here. WP:LISTCRITERIA states that the criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. Simply put, even with the current state of this list, there are many other cardinals for whom we could easily find more than seven references, and we can never be sure that we have listed them all. In my opinion, this list doesn't belong in an encyclopedia but in a newspaper, and a newspaper we are not. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we shouldn't have a list of them, then why have them in prose?

kencf0618 (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to 2025 papal conclave per the merge comments above. Sundayclose (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge to the 2025 papal conclave. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, no need for a separate article. Nevermore27 (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Some Background Each papal conclave from 1939 onwards has a papabile section. I'm working up an omnibus table (revamping the List of papal conclaves) for ease of reference in my sandbox, starting at 1903. Just adding up the cited names the number of papabile are are, respectively, 0,0,0, nine or more than twelve, 5, 10, 2, 2, 8, and TBD. Would this table be subject to Afd? Apply the same logic. kencf0618 (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2025 papal conclave per WP:NOPAGE. Graham (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have no doubt a Pope will be elected before anything can be done about this article and when one is, the list becomes basically irrelevant. The article should not outlive the conclave itself.Amyzex (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2025 papal conclave per WP:NOPAGE. I'll also take a moment to note my opinion that some sort of actual list in the article is fine. I don't want my merge vote to be used as a cudgel against any editor with an interest in writing about papabile. Wikipedians with a greater interest in the subject can in fact come up with a guideline for inclusion that does not require original research. I believe Wikipedia is a work in progress and it is fine for names to be added to and fall off such a list over time.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or merge with 2025 papal conclave.) I understand the instinct that we shouldn't be mucking about in the weeds here making judgement calls about who gets on the list. On other elections pages these choices are commonplace: what states/seats do you characterize as 'swing', what prognosticator's election ratings are notable enough to include in a table, or, most relevant here, who are the main candidates in a future election. See: 2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries (Ugh, what an unwieldy list). We have to make judgement calls sometimes, and I think the seven source requirement is a decent measure of whether someone is considered a frontrunner. Side note: without this page existing, 2025 papal conclave and Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave will go right back to getting constant edits adding, removing, tweaking the papabili list. Having it here makes it more manageable. If it balloons at least it isn't harming the other two pages. TheSavageNorwegian 19:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only who are the primary (and secondary and tertiary, as applicable) prospects, but who were; cardinals carry over from conclave to conclave and American political candidates from election cycle to election cycle, after all. kencf0618 (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Thriley (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is not necessary and can be in other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bte3000 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not necessary. If the 2013 edition could be deleted, this should. The 2013 papabili was more notable in my opinion. João^hola 18:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally unpredictable! Please wait with writing about this until after the conclave. Happytravels (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an WP:Eventualist, I can assure you there shall be analyses of the analyses. kencf0618 (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, mere speculation. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - literally dozens of reliable sources from around the world, showing significant coverage. It's non-stop coverage on all the networks, newspapers, and webs. Bearian (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Do all the sources list the same cardinals as frontrunners? If not, we can't curate our own list as this page does. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the stand-alone article, merge key information. Like the list articles created for previous papal conclaves, this one is highly speculative, and fails multiple Wikipedia standards, as noted above. Drdpw (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge This is way to much for just speculation to have a standalone article with this much detail. Merging to Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave is quite appropriate because it already has the same columns for country, position, and date created cardinal, allowing for a simpler presentation. Reywas92^Talk 16:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. I think there is value (that passes WP:10YEARTEST) in tracking papabili, as it reflects divisions and issues within the church. It is similar to tracking discussed candidates for political elections. That said, a separate article is overkill, and likely incomplete given that so many of the electors are discussed as papabili. So why not merge this with the electors article, perhaps just by adding a column to the table of electors tracking references for papabili discussion? Mgruhn (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per others' arguments. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something?) 20:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2025 papal conclave: It makes more sense to have one detailed article about the subject than many undetailed articles. And why should this one have a papabili article when no other conclave has one? Hlsci (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - This is a solid article on candidates, one which holds its place among articles on the Catholic Church. Although a merger back into the 2025 papal conclave wouldn't be that harmful, this is a good standard to set on candidates for Pope, and I would love to see even more detail here. It could even be expanded in the future, with historical detail. PickleG13 (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2025 papal conclave. There is definitely some good sourced material worth keeping here, and it can be incorporated into the article on the conclave itself, but having a separate article is WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Extreme Keep: This is major news and people deserve to be reading about who may become the next pope so this should not be deleted under any circumstances. Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with 2025 papal conclave. Short=term info, e.g. election candidates, horses, is trivial after the event. WP:EVENT has relevant issues.
• Keep: There is enough sources to justify a stand alone article. Lightoil (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge into 2025 papal conclave. If the table/list is based on published WP:RSes, then it should be considered encyclopedic, much like electoral polling is relevant to election articles, and odds are relevant to sporting event articles. The existence and coverage of public speculation is factual; that's different than the speculations being themselves facts. (We have articles on God, not because there is consensus that God is true, but that there is consensus that people believe in God.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are plenty of reliable sources, but they are all WP:OR or WP:PRIMARY. In order to have any sort of proper, Wikipedia page on the topic, we would need articles reporting on who articles are calling papabili - not the articles calling people papabili themselves. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete extremely speculative with no concrete definition of who is considered papabili. Baseless media speculation should not be an article, just as we don't have people considered likely to win the 2028 United States Presidential Election. At most a merge to main article if there is anything of substance here. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with deleting this article, but to be fair, we do have articles about primary elections and the vice presidential shortlists. Flangalanger (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per others; article contains information useful in the 2025 Papal Conclave page (or the cardinal electors page) for popular speculation on who we all thought the next pope would be, but we are not the news nor are we a speculation site. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 01:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave per WP:NOPAGE (the information is already in the prose at 2025 papal conclave). We use editorial judgement whether a stand-alone page should be created or whether the information is best incorporated into another page. In this case, the nom is correct, the list was highly speculative and would not pass WP:10Y. --Enos733 (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any consensus here and I think arguments might change now that the decision has been made and made quickly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2025 papal conclave#Papabili. These cardinals weren't declared candidates in a political election and shouldn't be presented in a way that makes them look as though they were. Rather, they were the subject of media speculation as potential contenders to be elected, which is notable enough to be mentioned in an appropriate article but not a reasonable selection for an article of its own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to 2025 papal conclave. Yes, it passes GNG, but it doesn't show long-term notability. There's also the OR issue. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No articles proposed for deletion at this time

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

Atibala (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)

Article fails WP:GNG. Most of the detail is unsourced and possibly WP:OR (e.g. "He had been created by Ravana as a test-tube baby."). Only sourced detail "Atibala was a servant of Lanka king Ravana." can be added on Ravana page if it can be verified, but the current detail fails verification from the source - source says Atibala was Yama in form of a sannyasin. Asteramellus (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Asteramellus (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pujniya Raseshwari Devi (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)

Her only notable work is "involvement in the idol installation ceremonies" of some temples. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and fails wp:GNG / wp:ANYBIO. Zuck28 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Hinduism, India, Chhattisgarh, and Odisha. Zuck28 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parbad Kali Mandir (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 on a temple does not satisfy general notability with its current references, and has been moved to article space after being declined at AFC, and then was moved to draft space and back to article space twice. Review of the sources shows that they are not independent.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Jagran (in Hindi)	About renovation of the temple. Appears to be an interview between the news and the temple.	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	Youtube (in Hindi)	Youtube	Probably not	Don't know	No	No
3	www.livehindustan.com	About renovation of the temple. Reads like a release from the template.	No	Yes, just barely.	Yes	No
4	hindi.news18.com	News article about the significance and popularity of the Kali Temple in Deoghar	No	Yes, just barely.	Yes	No
5	www.livehindustan.com	About the history of the temple. Appears to have been written by the temple.	No	Yes	Yes	No

Better sources probably can be found, but the article is still not ready for article space.

• Draftify as nominator, to be moved into article space ONLY by AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Jharkhand. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to formally express my opposition to the deletion of the article on Parbad Kali Mandir. I believe that this temple holds significant historical, cultural, and religious importance, and deserves to be included on Wikipedia. While the sources currently cited may not meet the ideal reliability standards, I am in the process of gathering additional, more authoritative references that can help demonstrate its notability.

  The temple is not only an important religious site for the local community, but it also holds cultural significance, and I am confident that better sources can be found to back these claims. The current sources, while they may appear promotional or limited in scope, offer a starting point. I am more than willing to contribute further to the article to ensure that it meets Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality.

  I kindly request that the deletion be reconsidered, and the article be allowed to remain in article space while I work on improving the content and references. Additionally, I would be open to collaborating with other editors to strengthen the article’s foundation and ensure that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

  Thank you for your understanding and consideration. 2405:201:A400:725C:A023:F99E:F4C2:22D7 (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can you explain how this is an interview? Yes, there is an accompanying news video that involves interviewing someone, but the news article itself doesn't appear to be an interview. And it is explicitly about the history of the temple. Silverseren^C 06:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to express deep concern and strong opposition to the deletion of the article on Parbad Kali Mandir. This temple is not just a structure of stone; it represents the heart and soul of a community that holds it dear. For those who are connected to it, Parbad Kali Mandir is a place of spiritual importance, cultural richness, and historical significance.

It deeply saddens me to see that such a meaningful and revered place might be erased from the pages of Wikipedia due to issues of notability. Parbad Kali Mandir is more than just a local landmark—it is a symbol of devotion, a living history that has shaped generations. This temple has been a site of prayer, peace, and reflection for countless people, and its significance goes far beyond what is easily captured in a few sources.

I understand that Wikipedia requires reliable and independent sources, but the cultural weight this temple carries in the region is undeniable. The lack of independent, scholarly articles on it does not diminish its true value. To erase this article would not just be the deletion of a page, but the erasure of a piece of history that holds deep emotional and spiritual ties for so many.

I sincerely ask for your compassion and understanding. Rather than deletion, I urge you to allow this article to remain in article space. With the support of the Wikipedia community, this entry can be improved, expanded, and enriched to meet the required standards, all while preserving the essence of what makes Parbad Kali Mandir so important to so many.

Please reconsider, and let the memory of this sacred site live on, not just for those who know it, but for future generations to understand its significance.

Thank you for your time and consideration. 2405:201:A400:725C:A023:F99E:F4C2:22D7 (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find additional news sources (or published books) covering the temple in Hindi or just other Indian news sources we were unable to find, that would be helpful. Silverseren^C 16:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify or Delete. I was the second AFC reviewer for this page. I declined the draft because of no significant coverage just as it was declined by previous AFC reviewer. Sources were poor and unreliable. Creator then moved the draft to mainspace without following up on feedback. It was reverted but the creator moved it back again to mainspace. I still do not see any improvement to pass notability. If draftied, I would suggest a move lock. RangersRus (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you address and explain the sources more directly then, RangersRus? Because the table up above seems incorrect in multiple aspects and I don't see anything about the sources being "poor and unreliable". Could you explain what you mean by that? As they seem like normal news articles about a location. Silverseren^C 00:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Youtube is unreliable and live hindustan reliability is questionable. Jagran and News18 are poor with no reliable significant coverage. Jagran article is on renovation of the temple and need for 1 crore rupee for it. News18 disclaimer for the story based on legends, says "The information given in this news has been written after talking to astrologers and acharyas on the basis of zodiac sign, religion and scriptures. Any incident, accident or profit or loss is just a coincidence. Information from astrologers is in everyone's interest. Local-18 does not personally endorse anything stated." One of the livehindustan article is also on same legends and mythology, and these news also reads like "Paid news and undisclosed advertorials" per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. RangersRus (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sirah of the Prophet (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 can't find evidence that this is a notable book, sources are blogs, shops, ... Nothing better seems to available through Google Books or News. Fram (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. Fram (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bahishti Zewar (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)

There is no doubt that the subject is notable as a book. However, the authorship of the book is highly disputed, and even the content variations are debatable. This issue has been discussed by Ahlehaqmedia, a scholarly website. In its current form, the article would need to be entirely rewritten based on reliable sources. Given the present structure and sourcing, it is not suitable as a standalone article. I propose redirecting it to the article on Ashraf Ali Thanwi.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per WP:DINC 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Mosque Mission (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)

Is there really any need for a separate article just to write this little? It doesn’t meet the notability criteria at all. At most, it can be attached to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. Somajyoti ✉ 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Terrorism, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Yes, first of all, it is a registered NGO and relates to WP:Three, it has these patricular sources that you should check, or you can add sources to establish notability and search on the internet, why didn't you check or if you did check, atleast say so. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 7:28 AM, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• And also, It's not "so little", please explain how large does the article have to be, I'll find the sources and add it. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 7:32 AM, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Being "short" is not grounds for deletion. That is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. If by "it can be attached" to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami you mean it can be merged there, then why is it nominated for deletion? For anyone searching for sources, the more common name is probably "Bangladesh Masjid Mission". Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Worldbruce's statement is correct, being short is not a reason for deletion, like if It's short, then why don't you expand the page? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Like how I first check and fix pages and search until deciding a different approach, You should try to first search or use a different approach. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be useful if you read WP:AfD and this page can definitely be improved, AfD is not always the solution, editing it and adding information may make it suitable to stay as a separate article on Wikipedia. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This initiative is widely coverage in Bengali language. And Its have significant social contribution. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 00:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If there is coverage of this in the Bengali language or any other language, add text supported by references from that language to the article so that it meets the notability criteria. It doesn’t matter what kind of social contribution it has. I think it is necessary to meet the notability criteria by using text supported by reliable sources. Somajyoti ✉ 08:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Somajyoti: It doesn't work that way. See WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXISTS. This discussion is based on existing sources even if they are not used in the article. MarioGom (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From what I can see in the cited sources, there's very little coverage of the Bangladesh Mosque Mission. For example, translating the first source yields no more than a few lines of relevant information: "He said these things in his speech as the chief guest at the day-long Imam training workshop organized by Bangladesh Mosque Mission, Chittagong North District." If there isn't any source that's entirely or mostly focused on the 'Bangladesh Mosque Mission', I'll lean towards delete. PS: Translating the other sources gives a similar impression -- just irrelevant passing mentions. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striked double vote. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References no. 2, 5, and 9 used here -- namely Bangla Tribune, Daily Sun (Bangladesh), and Bangla Tribune respectively -- may be considered reliable in the context of Bangladesh, excluding the rest. Somajyoti ✉ 15:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are many sources, looking at one and then saying its not enough to establish notability is absolute bogus, there are several in-depth sources and The Daily Ittefaq, Daily Sun, Bangla Tribune are reliable sources and others too, thus it passes, it is also a registered NGO and plays a important role in social reform, it left a impact and passes WP:GNG thus it deserves a separate article plus the article is not even 2 months old now, like give some time for improvement, Somajyoti and Maniacal ! Paradoxical! plus how is it not relevant? you have failed to explain, explain properly, Somajyoti also, you should explain your reason. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be kept per WP:N, WP:NEXIST and etc. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tafsir Meshkat (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'm hesitant to mark this article for deletion, but the sources here feel insufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG, as well as WP:NSCHOLAR (for the work in question). In addition, a rudimentary check suggests an extremely high likelyhood the article was written by AI, and lastly, the dates of the citations violate WP:MOS, raising questions as to whether they were hallucinated. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Iran, and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a scholar in the usual sense; more of an independent, which we can't quantify or assess without significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I originally created this article 12 years ago. Back then, the size of the article was not much and so were the number of references. Per, 7-day deletion tag created about two weeks ago, I added more content and references. The sources (except for Hedaytoor website) are all independent of the author. That said, for most of Exegeses not written in English, the issues mentioned above exist. Take for example the following:

Tafsir al-Mazhari,Tazkirul Quran

Moreover, the references of this article went through a round of modification ever since this deletion nomination started. I did that to make sure they are all accessible online.Kazemita1 (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments you have made here are largely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which aren't really good arguments in this case and do not address the concerns raised by User:Bearian. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my arguments are "largely" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I mentioned finding several online-accessible sources in the last couple of weeks. I also mentioned that these sources are independent of the subject of the article. These are notability policies after all. As for what you call WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I am bringing up a point about a big existing category in the English Wikipedia, i.e. Tafsir of Quran. I think I can expect to see the same standard being applied to all articles in that category. Kazemita1 (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom,Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deep Research by ChatGPT (in Farsi) produces an article with multiple sources: تفسیر مشکات. My conclusion it to keep it. However, as an existential question, if ChatGPT can create such a decent article on demand without referring to the Wikipedia articles, I guess we can argue that we don't need to have a Wikipedia article in the first place. Taha (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the link for the English article by ChatGPT, though it has referenced enwiki material too. Also, please don't remind me of Wikipedia policies. I am aware of them. I try to use common sense. Taha (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Research by ChatGPT" is virtually never a good argument for anything on wikipedia whatsoever. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might be surprised, but deep research produces really high quality articles. Also, it is more to the point than wiki articles. Disclaimer: AI is my research area and day job. Taha (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AI draft is slop, the sources are untenable including using Wikipedia itself. By all means, continue using it in your day job, but not here please. Geschichte (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubification can be used to improve an article, but I don't see that here. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get some votes focused on non-hallucinated sourcing, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)

2019 Racine synagogue vandalism (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:NEVENT. Coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE, of a legal nature, not analytical, and not sustained. Vandalism is also not a kind of crime that, in most cases, results in notability proving coverage. Merge into The Base (hate group)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Judaism, Michigan, and Wisconsin. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it appears to have some coverage which does not seem routine to me, if this is routine, that is pretty tragic. [Far right network orchestrated synagogue attacks, FBI says][16][17][18] Andre🚐 03:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it's crediting that to the FBI, there is no unique analysis in any of those articles, and it's also only two months later, except for routine legal proceedings, WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Antisemitic vandalism is very common. It making the news is also very common. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  FBI saying it was orchestrated goes to it not being run-of-the-mill hate vandalism. It also made it into this book and this one. These articles [19], [20] and this [21] show that it kept getting coverage over time for whatever reason. Andre🚐 03:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How long is the book coverage, and what is it in the context of? It won't load for me. The forward article is trial stuff and the other two are local. They're sustained though so that's a little better. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Page 314 of Koehler (which is Cambridge University Press) and page 238 of Payne, the former cites the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel from 2020, the latter cites the Justice Department website press release. I cannot see the whole page just a snippet, but I can check to see if those books are kicking around a library or any other way to read them in full to read the surrounding context, but it is enough for me already that for 3-4 years this series of events is being covered somehow. I agree the Forward is a trial article but based on the content of it, plus the linked Ynet article that they cite which is dead for me right now but I will try to track down, I wouldn't call it WP:ROUTINE which if you read is about run-of-the-mill events like scheduled events or usually I think of product announcements. It does not automatically say all trial articles are routine coverage. Standard crime coverage would be routine like maybe something like this: [22] When the FBI is saying it is an orchestrated domestic terrorist group and people are using it as an example of an extremism trend in the US that is very not routine in my view. Andre🚐 03:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Trial coverage is almost always... well, maybe routine isn't the right word, but primary? It contains no analysis and is uniformly just repeating the legal arguments. In cases where the trial is analyzed or the crime that is another thing, but that does not seem to be happening here. If you see more of what is in the books ping me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep given these sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a legitimate SPINOFF of The Base (hate_group)#Anti-Semitic activities. Coverage isn't routine at all. This doesn't mean that there is no problem with the article. There is. A week before the nomination it was moved from 2019 synagogue vandalism to its current name without debate. This move should be undone, unless a better target is found. gidonb (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]