Del per nom. Some uses of "Native American religionist" seem to include "Native Americans" who have fused elements of traditional belief into Christianity, i.e. people who are "(Native American) (religionists)". But even if the term was only used to denote "(Native American religion)ists", I think it would be SOP, because "Native American religion" is itself necessarily SOP—"(Native American) (religion)"—because most of the various unrelated, unacquainted or hostile peoples that inhabited America before the Europeans arrived had their own independent, unrelated, unacquainted and/or mutually exclusive or hostile belief systems. "Traditional African religionist" seems similarly SOP. - -sche(discuss) 00:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Both are SOP: traditional African religionist = traditional African religion + -ist (and: traditional African religion = traditional + African + religion). --WikiTiki89 00:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that it's SOP and that the lemma form gets exactly 2 hits on Books and Groups combined, we should not have this for the same reason we shouldn't have Asian religionist (you know- adherants of Judeo-Christian-Muslim-Brahmanist-Buddhist-Animist-Shamanism).
The very idea that a myriad of belief systems that grew out of a multitude of very local cultures (not to mention complex state religions such as those of the Maya, Incas and Aztecs) can all be shoehorned into a single academic-sounding term is like asking "how do you say that in Indian"- not just ignorant, but insulting.
The contributor of these terms has been massively reworking all of our religion-related entries on a wrongheaded quest to make sure that every religion gets treated exactly the same- never mind that one has been thoroughly integrated into the core of the English language through most of its 15-hundred-year-plus history, while another may have been unknown to all but a few thousand followers in the few decades of its existence. It isn't just mixing apples and oranges, but watermelons, avocados and raisins as well- throwing them all into a blender and pouring precisely measured amounts of the resulting ugly slop into every container and/or orifice available.
This is a case of basically making things up in order to fill imaginary slots- it has nothing to do with usage and everything to do with ideologically-based prescriptivism. I know I'm not the only one who's really getting tired of it all. Delete both. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
What are you waiting for, then? Keφr 18:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete both, and probably more from the same source. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete both; straightforward SOP, and just plain wrong per Chuck Entz. bd2412T 12:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Deleted both.—msh210℠ (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)