Bana'im : The main source currently supporting it, the Jewish Virtual Library, is unreliable, and itself covers it in a listicle.  The only other mentions of the subject anywhere are extremely trivial, typically just mentioned in a list alongside other minor sects, such as in the second source on the page.  This does not provide any scope for the meaningful expansion of the topic, which ultimately fails to establish its notability due to the sheer triviality of its coverage.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 10:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator: Suitable and verifiable supporting tertiary sourcing was found.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 06:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Judaism .  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 10:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This is page has a subject that has no potential to grow beyond a stub.  How can you possibly know that?  Sects of major religions are certainly notable.  Sourcing is sparse, but sufficient.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Same question as here . What source have you found that suggests otherwise? The only source with substantial coverage is an unreliable one. Every other mention is in trivial list form. What sources have you found that establish WP:GNG , and offer the possibility of this being anything more than a forever stub? Iskandar323 ( talk ) 10:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some religions have hundreds if not thousands of minor sects. I fail to see how the blanket inclusion of sects, no matter how minor or unheard of, actually conforms with the notability guidelines. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 10:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Same answer! -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sourcing for this page is weaker still than the other one.  There is not even the suggestion in the JVL material, wherever it comes from, that there is any contemporary scholarship on this.  And no, I haven't read the 19th-century German books mentioned as references.  I only found one other independent source, and that is this , which quotes the same primary text passage as the first paragraph as the JVL, which I suspect is the sole basis for information on the subject, i.e. one mention in one Jewish text.  The JVL material suggests that there was a brief scholarly tussle over the etymology of the word at some point, and that's it.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 15:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maghāriya .  Srnec ( talk ) 20:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: It turns out that there is a Jewish Encyclopedia entry for this , which is a tertiary public domain source that can serve as an adequate anchor for the page to replace the unreliable JVL.  Given that this source exists, it's surprising that it was not used in the first place.  I will now be withdrawing the nomination.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 06:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This article is solid (if short).  It does not meet any criteria in WP:DEL-REASON .  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: speedy keep