This page serves to coordinate the various discussions taking place throughout the Christianity-related project talkpages. Even though , there are numerous Christianity-related projects, with many different conversations going on at the same time. This Noticeboard hopes to achieve some kind of order in keeping track of the various goings-on. You are welcome to add to the discussion.
Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are listings, name mentions, routine mill news, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth // Timothy :: talk 02:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
The article notes: "Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School, Po Lam Estate, Tseung Kwan O. ... This year, the school implemented an orientation programme for its 11 new teaching staff. The programme introduces the new teachers to the aims of the school; explains teaching procedures; and allows them to share their opinions and experiences after a few weeks in the new job. ... This year, the school has also introduced a new Form 1 subject called Computer Literacy. ... Since the school was founded in 1987, the quality of students has improved greatly. It accepted mostly Band 4 students in 1987, but now most students are in Band 1. ... The Christian school was founded in 1987. It is not affiliated to any particular church. ... Students are taught in Chinese and English, both sharing equal prominence. ... The school has 26 classrooms and laboratories for Integrated Science, Chemistry, Physics and Biology."
Ruby (2022-07-26). "西貢區中學Band1學校集結｜演藝界新星準備發光發亮" [Sai Kung District Secondary School Band 1 schools gather｜Rising stars in the entertainment industry are ready to shine]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
The article notes: "迦密主恩中學 迦密主恩中學是西貢區將軍澳新市鎮內第一個中學校舍，亦是第一間資助英文中學。所以它在早期已經是區內的知名band 1 英中，是區內採用英語授課歷史最悠久的學校！實力一定不會差。交流計劃及海外遊學團是他們基本的活動，固此他們的學生很早已經接觸外國文化，英文水平更是優秀。 與其他區的名校一樣，迦密主恩中學一樣著重STEM教育（科學、技術、工程及數學），學校就有STEM課程包括生物科技及3D打印技術，更有VR虛擬實景供同學發揮創意，說不定香港的將來科學家就是出自迦密主恩中學！"
From Google Translate: "Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary Schooll is the first secondary school building in the new town of Tseung Kwan O, Sai Kung District, and the first aided English secondary school. Therefore, it was already a well-known band 1 English-Chinese school in the district in the early days, and it is the school with the longest history of teaching in English in the district! The strength will definitely not be bad. Exchange programs and overseas study tours are their basic activities. Therefore, their students have been exposed to foreign cultures very early, and their English proficiency is even better. Like other prestigious schools in the district, Carmel Lord's Grace Middle School also focuses on STEM education (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). The school has STEM courses including biotechnology and 3D printing technology, and also has VR virtual reality for students to express their creativity. Maybe Hong Kong’s future scientists will come from Carmel Lord’s Grace School!"
"西貢將軍澳13校縮班" [Sai Kung Tseung Kwan O School 13 reduces classes]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2011-01-29. p. A13.
The article notes: "繼北區中學自願縮班紓緩殺校壓力後，另一個「重災區」西貢及將軍澳區，13間中學昨日亦達成協議，各自縮減一班，包括名英中學迦密主恩中學"
From Google Translate: "After the North District middle schools voluntarily reduced their classes to relieve the pressure of school killings, 13 middle schools in Sai Kung and Tseung Kwan O districts, another "hardest-hit area", also reached an agreement yesterday to reduce the number of classes by one class each, including the main school of Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School."
The article notes: "迦密主恩中學創校24年，校舍建於八十年代，校長林瑞美指校舍只有25個課室，98年該校成為區內唯一英中，最高峯時多達31班，課室長期不敷應用 ，於是在頂樓加建一層，但新建樓層每逢雨天經常漏水，要用膠袋和喉管勉強支撐，曾試過有膠袋變成“水彈”墮下，影響正在考試的學生。 去年起該校為應付新高中學制，更要藉用旁邊小學課室上課。"
From Google Translate: "Carmel Lord's Grace Secondary School was founded 24 years ago. The school building was built in the 1980s. Principal Lin Ruimei pointed out that the school building only has 25 classrooms. In 1998, the school became the only English-medium school in the district. At its peak, there were 31 classes. The classrooms were not fully utilized for a long time, so an additional floor was built on the top floor, but the newly built floor often leaked on rainy days, and had to be barely supported by plastic bags and pipes. In one case, a plastic bag turned into a "water bomb" and fell, affecting students who were taking exams. Since last year, in order to cope with the new high school academic structure, the school has to borrow classrooms from the neighboring primary school for classes."
Yun, Nga-ting 袁雅婷 (2023-02-01). "香港學校｜迦密主恩中學 全人優質基督教教育 培養品學兼優生" [Hong Kong School｜Carmel Lord's Grace Secondary School, holistic high-quality Christian education, cultivating students with excellent moral character and academic performance]. am730 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
The article notes: "學校亦著重STEM的發展。他說，學校運用三層架構發展同學相關的興趣及能力，第一層是全校參與模式，所有同學在初中到高中階段，課程都加入STEM元素。學生一般到大學才有機會接觸生物科技，但該校已設有生物科技實驗室，讓同學在中二開始對該科目有所理解，例如有關培植細菌、找出較強殺菌清潔劑的實驗等。高中就有各項STEM活動，例如STEM Day，所有學生都會參與其中。"
From Google Translate: "The school also focuses on the development of STEM. He said that the school uses a three-tier structure to develop students' relevant interests and abilities. The first level is a whole-school participation model. All students from junior high school to senior high school have STEM elements added to the curriculum. Students generally have the opportunity to come into contact with biotechnology only when they go to university, but the school already has a biotechnology laboratory, allowing students to begin to understand the subject in Secondary 2, such as experiments on cultivating bacteria and finding stronger antiseptic cleaners. There are various STEM activities in high schools, such as STEM Day, in which all students participate."
"將軍澳迦密主恩中學擧行三屆畢業禮，温漢璋勉勵必須有信心以將軍澳為家鄉發光芒" [Tseung Kwan O's Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School held its third graduation ceremony. Wan Hon-cheung encouraged the audience to have the confidence to shine in Tseung Kwan O as their hometown.]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1991-06-15. p. 6. Retrieved 2024-05-15 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are listings, name mentions, routine mill news, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth // Timothy :: talk 02:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
Sources
Lin, Zhong 林钟; Deng, Shaobing 邓少冰 (2014). "走进香港真道书院小学" [Visit Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy]. 七彩语文（习作） [Colourful Language (Exercises)] (in Chinese). No. 10. East China Normal University. ISSN1673-4998. Retrieved 2024-05-15 – via CQVIP [zh].
Colourful Language (Exercises) is a magazine published by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University. According to this description from Google Translate, "Colourful Language (Exercises) was officially launched in January 2015, with academic guidance provided by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University. The magazine is closely linked to the reform of basic education curriculum and strives to provide suitable resources and platforms for middle school Chinese teachers to meet the needs of teachers for daily teaching and improvement of professional qualities."
The abstract notes: "本期的＂大眼睛看世界＂,小编将和大家一起走进香港一所名校——香港华人基督教联会真道书院。真道书院位于香港调景岭湾畔,学校分小学和中学部,与其他学校不同,真道书院学生没有统一的校服。小学部学生在中文课上使用的是内地出版的小学语文课本,他们觉得教材文字优美,内容包含了古今中外的文化特色,和浓厚的道德教育元素，很符合小学语文教育的需要。"
From Google Translate: "In this issue of "Seeing the World with Big Eyes", the editor will go with you to a famous school in Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Union Logos Academy is located on the shores of Tiu Keng Ling Bay in Hong Kong. The school is divided into primary and secondary schools. Unlike other schools, students at Union Logos Academy do not have uniforms. Students in the primary school use primary school Chinese textbooks published in the Mainland in their Chinese classes. They feel that the textbooks are beautifully written, contain cultural characteristics of ancient and modern times, Chinese and foreign cultures, and have strong moral education elements, which are in line with the needs of primary school Chinese education. ... In the first two years of elementary school, Union Logos Academy expects students to lay a solid foundation of knowledge and learn self-care, self-study and self-reflection skills. The school focuses on constructing a school-based curriculum and uses some Chinese and art textbooks from the Mainland."
Lok, Irene (2015-05-11). "將軍澳一條龍直資 香港華人基督教聯會真道書院 中小學" [Tseung Kwan O One-stop Direct Subsidy Scheme. Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Primary and Secondary Schools]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
The article notes: "2002年創校的真道年資較其他直資學校淺，被定為新派直資學校，卻是全港唯一採用「十一年一貫」課程模式的學校，分兩年基礎階段、五年拓展階段及四年通達階段，以十一年完成小學及中學課程。 ... 在小學首兩年基礎階段，真道期望學生打穩知識基礎，學好自理、自學及自省能力。學校着力建構校本課程，採用部分內地中文及美術科教材"
From Google Translate: "Founded in 2002, Union Logos Academy has a younger school years than other DSS schools and is designated as a new DSS school. However, it is the only school in Hong Kong that adopts the "11-year consistent" curriculum model, which is divided into two years of basic stage and five years of expansion stage. and the four-year mastery stage, which takes eleven years to complete the primary and secondary school courses. ... In the first two years of elementary school, Union Logos Academy expects students to lay a solid foundation of knowledge and learn self-care, self-study and self-reflection skills. The school focuses on constructing school-based curriculum and adopts some mainland Chinese and art textbooks."
A, Yin 阿言 (2024-02-01). "專訪｜香港華人基督教聯會真道書院 多元體驗式學習培育未來領袖" [Exclusive Interview｜Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy's diversified experiential learning cultivates future leaders] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
The article notes: "學校著重學生全方位發展，學生從小學便培育體、美特質，提供多項興趣班予學生選擇，如跳繩、跆拳道、琵琶及烏克麗麗等。另外，為培養學生閱讀習慣，自小學階段設有閱讀時間，同學在操場集合一同閱讀，從小學階段養成自己探索知識的習慣。中學則設有 DEAR Time（Drop Everything And Read），讓學生暫時放下功課及其他事務，專心閱讀。學校更會舉辦不同活動，如閱讀馬拉松、圖書日、書展等讓同學接觸不同類型的書籍，鼓勵學生閱讀。"
From Google Translate: "The school focuses on the all-round development of students. Students develop physical and aesthetic qualities from elementary school, and provides students with a variety of interest classes to choose from, such as rope skipping, taekwondo, pipa and ukulele. In addition, in order to cultivate students' reading habits, reading time is set up from the primary school level. Students gather in the playground to read together, and develop the habit of exploring knowledge by themselves from the primary school level. Middle schools have DEAR Time (Drop Everything And Read), which allows students to temporarily put aside their homework and other matters and concentrate on reading. The school also organizes different activities, such as reading marathons, book days, book fairs, etc., to expose students to different types of books and encourage students to read."
Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2021-06-02). "【直資中學】一條龍11年完成小學中學課程 真道書院雙軌制曾出產IB狀元" [[Direct Subsidy Scheme Secondary School] One-stop primary school and middle school courses completed in 11 years. Union Logos Academy’s dual-track system has produced IB top scorers]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
The article notes: "位於將軍澳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院屬中小學直資一條龍學校，也是全港唯一以11年完成小學及中學課程的學校。真道書院既提供中學文憑試課程（DSE），同時開辦國際文憑課程（IB），學生在公開試成績優異，過去亦曾誕生IB狀元。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O is a one-stop school under direct subsidy for primary and secondary schools. It is also the only school in Hong Kong that completes primary and secondary school courses in 11 years. Union Logos Academy not only provides the Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (DSE) course, but also offers the International Baccalaureate Diploma (IB) course. Students have achieved excellent results in public examinations, and IB top scorers have also been born in the past."
Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2023-10-10). "直私面試丨直資真道書院2023年小一面試題目 老師話+傳豆袋考小朋友反應" [Direct Private Interview丨Direct Subscription Union Logos Academy Primary One Interview Questions 2023 Teacher’s Words + Bean Bag Test Children's Responses]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
The article notes: "位於將軍澳區直資學校的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，即提供本地文憑試（DSE）課程，同時開辦國際文憑（IB）課程，多年來深受家長歡迎。真道書院小一面試有兩輪，第一輪是小朋友自行面試，若成功通過會進入第二輪面試，家長也會獲邀出席，TOPick邀請了為女兒報考7間直私小學的港媽梁太，拆解真道書院小一面試第一階段考核的内容。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, located in the direct subsidy school in Tseung Kwan O District, provides local Diploma Examination (DSE) courses and also offers International Baccalaureate (IB) courses. It has been popular among parents for many years. There are two rounds of primary one interviews at Union Logos Academy. The first round is for children to interview on their own. If they successfully pass, they will enter the second round of interviews. Parents will also be invited to attend. TOPick invited Mrs. Leung, a mother from Hong Kong who applied for her daughter to seven direct private primary schools to dismante the contents of the first stage of the primary school interview at Union Logos Academy."
Reply, promo, interviews, all obviously based on the same info/source, nothing above show WP:SIRS or notability, they just show marketing at work. Nothing wrong with promotion, but it doesn't equal notability. // Timothy :: talk 12:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable religious figure. Half of the hits I get from searching for sources (string:"baker ninan fenn") are non-responsive; the other half are useless as sources for Fenn. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 20:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Diocesan bishops of major denominations have generally been held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 16:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Diocesan bishops of major denominations have generally been held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 16:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The sources have been fixed to not be dead; the first is of unknown authorship and the second doesn't discuss Yaqu'b in depth (though "Yaq'ub" gets name-dropped a fair bit). —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 22:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Diocesan bishops of major denominations have generally been held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 16:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable religious figure. Google search (string:"abraham julios") turns up barely anything, and the lot of it is unusable as sources. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 20:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Diocesan bishops of major denominations have generally been held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 16:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Diocesan bishops of major denominations have generally been held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 16:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable religious figure. Google search (string:"thomas koorilos") turns up no usable sources what-so-ever, mainly profiles and name-drops. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 20:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Diocesan bishops of major denominations have generally been held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 16:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subject lacks notability under the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Article survived a 2007 AfD but notability thresholds can change. Let'srun (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero coverage for this person, neither position is notable without an extensive sourcing to back it up. There has been no coverage added since 2007, so I don't expect notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it were verifiable (as stated in article) that this church's webcast truly was the first ever/longest running, that would be notable, but the only source for this claim is a former pastor's personal blog. No other evidence of notability for this church. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A recent review of FCC records, available literature, and the Kentucky New Era indicates that WNKJ-TV never broadcast, even though a permit was awarded. The FCC lists the permit as deleted May 7, 1984. We do not maintain articles, except in exceptional circumstances, on TV station permits that were not constructed, which applies to WNKJ-TV and the second attempt at the allocation, WKKT-TV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this should have been deprodded and brought to AfD because the case is fairly clear. For the record, I wrote the prod text which has been copied here and would vote delete. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Given that the only source for the claimed "actual operation" of the station (that apparently never actually happened) was the Broadcasting Yearbook, I feel confident in deeming this another reason why sourcing solely or primarily to databases is not what Wikipedia is looking for in 2024. We need significant coverage, and stations that never were tend not to get that in the end. WCQuidditch☎✎ 18:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a missionary who does not appear to be notable. Lack of in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I prodded this as it appears to have no notability. I still believe this to be the case and the article fails WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 19:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Granted that I don't know what reference sources would discuss this Christian animated children's show but I didn't find anything in my online search that wasn't either user-generated content, product-focused (promotion) or sites that allowed users to view episodes. I found no secondary sources or SIGCOV. One site called it an "award-winning" show but I never could locate what that award was. Given the detail of content about the characters, I think this article mainly serves as a nostalgia page for IP editors to write about a series they might have watched when they were younger. Dare I say it? I don't think it is notable or encyclopedic. LizRead!Talk! 22:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So far I've found one review in the Wichita Falls Times Record News: "DVD hangs on wing, prayer and a caterpillar", which has eight brief paragraphs. I'll see if I can find anything else. Toughpigs (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Toughpigs, I'm impressed by your diligence. We have so many articles on marginal children's television series. I guess this one did have some coverage, at least in Wichita. LizRead!Talk! 05:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keepthis UT Daily Beacon review is independent, extensive, and as RS as any college student publication would be. In combination with the above, that would be a notability pass. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of note but not contributing to notability, Tim Conway's obituaries do seem to mention this series (he voiced the main character) among his other clearly more well-known roles. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE fail WP:SIRS, nothing addressing the subject - the San Diego campus - directly and indepth. Article is a unneeded CFORK of Cristo Rey Network, no objection to a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 17:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per WP:ORGCRIT, local units of larger organizations need to show coverage of the sub-unit beyond the local area. All reliable, secondary sources cited here are local to San Diego. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirectRedirect to Cristo Rey Network. No sources found outside of non-independent or non-local media that meet SIGCOV requirements. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cristo Rey Network. Not independently notable. It is already listed at the target, and there is not really anything that needs merging. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See WP:NSCHOOL. WP:ORG specifically says in the first paragraph, The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, (italics mine) religions or sects, and sports teams. The appropriate guideline is thus not WP:ORGCRIT, but WP:SIGCOV, which says "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Non-local sources are not required for GNG, and this article has 3 RS from local television news (CBS8 and 2 from ABC 10 News San Diego KGTV), as well as San Diego Entertainer Magazine and San Diego Business Journal, which are independent of the subject, as defined in SIGCOV. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, yes you are correct. A GNG pass is sufficient (SIGCOV is part of that but independent reliable secondary sources are still required - I think you address that though). My problem with the sources cited so far, however, is that these are all local, and describing the new school for what it has set up to be, and the way it is funded. There is, however, a case that there is something innovative (if not revolutionary) about this school, and that this will attract notice. What would clinch it for me is some national attention, or some attention in something other than a news report. I note that there is, in fact, only one ABC 10 News San Diego KGTV source, but even if there were more, they would all be treated as one for purposes of GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
National attention (or even a non-local source) is NOT a requirement of SIGCOV. That's the difference between the NORG requirement and GNG. Non-profit schools can meet the notability requirement with either NORG or GNG or both. This one meets GNG.
I also found and added one additional source announcing a full-ride scholarship opportunity from the University of San Diego. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An announcement of a scholarship is a primary source. Primary sources do not count towards GNG. Also the ABC 10 report is clearly not independent. The writer is a staff writer, but it is based entirely on an interview with the head, and ends with a fundraiser. It also has a questionable claim in it. How can someone be 300% below the poverty line? But I suppose bad maths is not an issue. The writer has a declared interest in faith based schools. The CBS8 source also has primary news/independence issues - it is a piece that is bylined "Cristo Rey San Diego High needs more corporate sponsors for work study program." It appears to be predicated on that basis. I do not see how any of this crosses the GNG threshold. If we have no national sources, local sources need to be in depth and to provide sufficient information to write an article. These sources do not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:LINKFARM. This is a listing of every known publication (some linked, some not) generated by the Jehovah's Witnesses dating back to the 19th century, up to the current 21st Century. — Maile (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the deletion. If one wants a list of the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses, one can visit the official website. (I know that not every publication ist available there. However, the existence of secret publications like Shepherd the Flock of God is easily found on the Internet. To include this big list just because of the few secret ones is disproportionate.) Junkönig (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the publications are listed in the Watch Tower Publications Index, which is ‘on the official website’ but isn’t prominently featured, nor in a particularly helpful format, and it isn’t as straightforwardly accessible as suggested here. Only recent publications are prominently featured on the official site, and none of the early works.—Jeffro77Talk 13:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fail to see how WP:LINKFARM applies here. As for WP:NLIST, I will quote directly from the guideline to argue for this articles existence
"Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."
As the JW's and the WTS are in themselves notable, this list, by WP:NLIST, appears to be a valid addition. I will also copy/paste my argument from the first AfD I participated in on this topic back in 2015, as I believe the argument still stands
"I'm drawn to this line in the WP:NOTDIRECTORY rules "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". I personally believe that this significantly contributes to the list topic (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses). Dr. Zoe Knox, in an article entitled "Writing Witness History: The Historiography of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania" (published in the Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011) notices that "While a handful of annotated bibliographies and literature reviews have been published, usually as an addendum to monographs, there has been no sustained attempt to survey and chart scholarship on Witness history", and also mentions that "the Society has placed far less importance on the production and preservation of material on the organisation’s own history, which has led to a limited engagement with historical inquiry". I believe that this list, from a purely academic standpoint, helps significantly with the latter issue as raised by Dr. Knox by providing a reference point that the JW's themselves do not."
So in sum, I would suggest keeping this list but possibly trimming it a bit. But NOT wholesale deletion. Vyselink (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the notability of JWs as a whole but if there are reliable sources that list stuff like "group of every JW publication since the 1800s" together. That's what NLIST is talking about since notability isn't inherited. The most notable publications (the Watchtower and Awake, Photo Drama of Creation, etc) are already somewhat covered over at Jehovah's Witnesses publications so this list is duplicative at best and otherwise "indiscriminate" at worst. I suppose one could propose a merge if you feel that strongly about it? I'm not sure it would all that useful from this perspective but I wanted to offer it as an alternative. Knox's argument about the lack of interest sounds more like a convincing argument for deletion, sadly. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 06:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interjected comment: I would argue that this part of NINI applies here: "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums". WTS publications are books/magazines (and on occasion films) and personally I think meet the "certain circumstances". I believe that this list does however need to be trimmed (and doesn't need anywhere near as many pictures). Also, as a side note, Dr. Knox did NOT say there was a lack of interest, she said it hasn't been done. There is a difference, especially in today's academic publishing world. Vyselink (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not intend for this to be a "bundled" nomination but for context... the companion article List of Jehovah's Witnesses publications has a tag for primary sources. Since what exactly a primary source is might not be as glaringly obvious to a non-JW, these would be refs 1–16, 22–27, 29, 32, and 34. I think this list article has the potential to be improved and the tag addressed as there are some JW publications that are collectively talked about in reliable sources. List of Watch Tower Society publications (the subject of this deletion nomination) is literally intended as a list for every Watchtower publication since its inception and all of the cited references are primary sources. Hence my hesitation in suggesting a merge as a valid alternative, even if it technically is one. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 06:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vyselink’s rationale. Alternatively, move to a JW WikiProject subpage as a resource.—Jeffro77Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about Vyselink's rationale made you change your mind? The reason I'm asking is because you were the who started the first AfD for this back in 2015. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 18:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It became evident at the previous AfD 9 years ago that most of the editors in the JW WikiProject group considered the page to be a useful resource. Hence my suggestion at this time to instead move it to a subpage of the WikiProject. Also, do you still have exactly the same opinions about everything as you did 9 years ago?—Jeffro77Talk 21:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, obviously people can change their opinions over time. I was just curious what exactly made you change your mind since you believed that this page should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR back then. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also said in the previous AfD that the list of publications is available from the JW website. However, the official site omits the existence of some literature (e.g., the elders’ manuals). Additionally, for various reasons, some editors might be reluctant to use the JW official website. But as previously indicated, it may be better as a subpage of the WikiProject.—Jeffro77Talk 22:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to create subpages at the JW WikiProject, I'm not going to try and stop you. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 04:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your pointy response runs counter to my suggestion to move the page as a possible option for the AfD. As such, I have created the subpage separately.--Jeffro77Talk 09:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not trying to be pointy. I didn't say anything initially because an AfD doesn't need to happen for a WikiProject to do its thing but you kept bringing it up so I figured actually saying this would be helpful. I was literally just pointing out that you didn't need my (or anyone else's permission) to do what you wanted to do there. Maybe it would've been less likely to be misconstrued if I had stated I had no objections? Clovermoss🍀(talk) 14:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be less likely to be misconstrued if your response was consistent with the fact that I suggested moving the page into the WikiProject namespace as an outcome of the AfD. That is still the preferred option in order to retain the page history. Moving this article into the other namespace is intrinsic to the purpose of the AfD, and necessarily requires ‘permission’ here for it to be done properly.—Jeffro77Talk 20:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page lists publications of the Watch Tower Society, including materials that predate the existence of Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, that error does not really affect the validity of the nomination.—Jeffro77Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—On the basis that the nominator has specifically stated that there is no intention to challenge the creation of the subpage in the JW WikiProject as a resource for editors, I would in that case not be opposed to deleting the copy in the article namespace. (However, it is preferable that this page be moved to the other namespace to retain the page history.)—Jeffro77Talk 13:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trans wiki, or move to wiki-namespace Any of these options are fine, but I agree with Clover that the list doesn't satisfy the notability requirements. (t · c) buidhe 01:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 08:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page is fundamentally flawed. The position of Honorary Chaplain to the King is a military appointment, for serving regular and reserve chaplains in the British and some Commonwealth armed forces. However much of the text refers to Chaplains to the King, who are members of the Ecclesiastical Household of the Royal Household, and are civilians, usually senior parish priests. I do not believe that the article can be repaired. As an alternative to deletion it would have to be wholly rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncox001 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC); listed on the log at 21:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Nothing found in article or BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. If sources are found that provide direct and indepth coverage, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 03:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 02:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's contention is incorrect - Honorary Chaplain to the King is NOT a military appointment. In recent times a number of HCs have been appointed from the forces but many are also appointed who have no link to the forces. All are absolutely part of the ecclesiastical household. As such, the assertion that the article "cannot be repaired" is flawed. It should be improved, perhaps by starting here (p304) which details the creation of the position in 1881.----Pontificalibus 06:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As lacking significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Also per WP:TNT: if someone believes this topic is notable, create a new article that's not a mess like this and with sufficient sources. AusLondonder (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TNT is not necessary for a small stub such as this, any corrections can be made in situ. Has reliable sources book coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus here, the discussion is ongoing and would benefit from editors knowledgeable about this subject. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 02:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An interesting and informative article about a position not necessarily written about often, nor well-known outside the UK. This would be even better with expansion. — Maile (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Micro-denomination of three churches with no reliable sources to establish notability via significant coverage. All existing sources fail to establish notability:
Link - Appears to be a reliable source with coverage on page 15, but note on page 2 that the author of the coverage on page 15 is/was a senior leader within the subject of the article and thus this source is not independent.
Link. Self-published source of questionable reliability, not updated for a decade.
Link - Erroneously cited and fails verification. The citation describes as "Doctrines of the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church"; the actual title of the paper is different.
Link - Fails verification for notability; does not reference subject.
Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
Editors arguing for "Keep" in the 2022 non-consensus AfD discussion depended heavily on 2 and 5; however, as I've shown here, 2 is not an independent source for notability, and 5 fails verification. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. The sources are either a walled garden type or passing mentions in directories. This is yet another non-notable splinter Calvinist group. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. As this is a 2nd nomination, would prefer a more explicit consensus to delete. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.
The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Defunct micro-denomination that existed for less than 10 years. It is not included in any of the authoritative encyclopedic sources (e.g. Melton). Can find no sources to establish notability under GNG or NORG. Existing sources in the article are unreliable or unverifiable. My analysis follows:
Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages
During the 2006 AfD, which resulted in no consensus, those arguing for "keep" tended not to make policy-based arguments. Additionally, they specifically pointed to the British Church Newspaper and Banner of Truth Magazine citations as proving notability. After 18 years, however, these publications remain unavailable online (including in the Internet Archive) and thus cannot be verified. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Invalid reasoning. A source that is not online remains verifiable by a trip to a library. Dead-tree sources are perfectly legitimate. And a denomination being defunct really doesn't matter. If it was notable once, it remains notabvle. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the 2006 discussion, this is the full text in one of the dead-tree sources: "On January 13-14, 2006, a new Presbyterian denomination was formed. During delegate meetings in Philadelphia, PA, the body adopted the name Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (WPCUS). The founding churches came together because of perceived equivocation towards important biblical doctines and because of tolerance of excesses in contemporary worship in other Presbyterian denominations." Sounds like WP:TRIVIALMENTION to me. I've made every effort to verify its existence; however, the comprehensive Banner of Truth magazine archive does not include this citation (see page 99, where no such article is referenced in the April 2006 issue). The WP:BURDEN is on the editor who added the material to add a verifiable, reliable source, and this isn't. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. The sources are either a walled garden type or passing mentions in directories. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This new denomination was an admin action by 7 churches. They changed their name and 10-15 years later changed it again. The refs don't stack up to notability. Desertarun (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2024 (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.
