Maha Bhoga Marga : At the very least this article needs a rewrite, but in my opinion this looks like a WP:TNT situation.  Suntooooth , it/he ( talk / contribs ) 15:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  Suntooooth , it/he ( talk / contribs ) 15:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Indonesia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: @ Suntooooth , this article and the Indonesian Wikipedia version, id:Maha Bhoga Marga , both cite offline refs.  Can you give us your assessment of each?  Thanks, -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't give a thorough response for a few reasons: I'm extremely busy and ill IRL at the moment, so it's difficult for me to focus; I don't speak the language of the sources, so everything I'm gathering is from inference and some machine translation; and I think I probably overstated when I said most of the sources are unreliable or aren't independent, since I can't tell for sure either way with most of them.  I'm not sure why I thought most of them were unreliable.  After looking at the sources today, ref 6 (Mastra, I Wayan (2010)) jumps out to me as an autobiography making claims about third-parties (which if I'm interpreting WP:BLPSELFPUB correctly seems dubiously reliable) and possibly not independent, although right now I don't have energy for research to determine if I Wayan Mastra is independent of the organisation or not.  Ref 4 (Suama, I.N. (1992)) is a thesis, which could be reliable but also may not be, and as I don't speak the language I can't verify whether it's reliable Sorry I can't give a better answer; I think I was probably a little hasty to condemn the sources when writing my original comment, although the issue of the article being entirely promotional in its entire history is still maybe worth a deletion, and at the very least needs a complete rewrite.  Suntooooth , it/he ( talk / contribs ) 01:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, Suntooooth .  Well, now it's my turn to claim "I'm extremely busy and ill IRL at the moment, so it's difficult for me to focus"  I will try to come back to this in a few days, if possible.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I don't see any opinions on what should happen with this article aside from the nominator.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a trimmed down version to Protestant Christian Church in Bali as an AtD.  If sourcing develops for a stand alone article, it can be split in the future.  // Timothy :: talk 14:45, 29 November 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: merge