Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Recent changes of Christianity-related talkpages
List of abbreviations (help):
D
Edit made at Wikidata
r
Edit flagged by ORES
N
New page
m
Minor edit
b
Bot edit
(±123)
Page byte size change

13 August 2024


Alerts for Christianity-related articles

Today's featured article requests

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

(1 more...)

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Good topic candidates

Featured article reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(3 more...)


Christianity Deletion list


Christianity

[edit]

Time dilation creationism

[edit]
Time dilation creationism (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:NFRINGE. I find no notice of this by WP:FRIND sources. Only creationists seem interested enough to comment. Wikipedia really is WP:NOT for discussing every flight-of-fancy that a creationist has about how to reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific facts. jps (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of meeting notability guidelines, which would be provided by significant coverage in non-crackpot sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:FRINGE creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Nom admits this is a religious, not scientific topic, and yet proposes to apply scientific article criteria to it, making this nomination completely erroneous and hence eligible for speedy keep per SK#3. The religious sources are sufficient and appropriate (independent, etc.) for GNG to be satisfied. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What an absurd argument. Creationists routinely present their arguments as 'scientific', and are clearly doing so in this particular instance. Just read the sources cited. Pseudoscience does not cease to be pseudoscience when promoted to support religious faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they do. And when they're doing so on a religious basis, religious rules apply, not FRINGE. Sorry if you don't like the guideline, but I didn't write it. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant section in WP:FRINGE makes absolutely clear that it is referring to Notable perspectives and states the fact that claims from [e.g. creationist] perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. The article presents zero evidence that either mainstream theologians nor mainstream scientists have even heard of this 'perspective', never mind bothered trying to address it. The only non-creationist source currently cited in the article doesn't even bother to describe the 'perspective' in any detail, instead mentioning "time dilation" in passing in a single sentence in a section on "Examples of Pseudoscience". [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the above, the suggestion that the religious sources being cited are 'independent' is both questionable and irrelevant, since they clearly aren't reliable sources for anything but the beliefs of their own authors regarding an obscure theory. Nothing is cited that establishes that this particular pseudoscientific hypothesis is even significant within creationism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I stripped out the science WP templates from the talk page as being non-relevant. The stub template was changed from cosmology to creationism. Beyond that I have no particular preference; it's pure pseudoscience so astronomy isn't all that relevant. Praemonitus (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks notability in RS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It should be kept in mind that the primary focus of the article is not scientific, but religious. It is a theological doctrine more than serious science. Thus it should be viewed with the criteria of a religious article. I did not intend to promote this thing when creating the article and I did not intend to promote fringe theories, but I thought that the article should be there to represent different religious doctrines. And as someone else already noted, WP:FRINGE reads: creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Thus the point of the original deletion request does not seem to be valid. As a religious doctrine, there seems to be just enough coverage for it. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my response to Jclemens above. No evidence has been provided that this perspective/doctrine has been "disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists". Or discussed in any detail by non-creationist sources at all. There is no religious exception to Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the complete lack of coverage in non-creationist sources, and the lack of evidence that this is even significant to creationism, there is nothing to move. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor Henderson

[edit]
Gregor Henderson (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:BIO. Sources 4-6 are primary, his "employer". I don't regard having a Order of Australia, or previous position as President of the Assembly, as conferring inherent notability. A search for sources yielded namesakes. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Wyatt

[edit]
Ron Wyatt (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)

Ron Wyatt was, according to fellow Christian fundamentalists, a fraud. But we can't really source that because no reliable source has covered it. The lack of interest from reality-based sources extends to everything else about the man. While the article has superficial referenciness, the sources cited fail to meet the Wikipedia standards of reliability and independence.This is a squarely WP:FRINGE topic that needs robust sourcing to maintain a solidly reality-based perspective.

There's a source represented as "andrews.edu" but in fact a monograph published in the Adventist Review (Wyatt was a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church). We have an article on "maintaining creationist integrity" - a horse that bolted so long ago that was long since rendered into glue - by Ken Ham and others, on the AiG website, an obviously unreliable source for anything even tangentially connected to reality. We have allthatsinteresting.com, which takes itself moderately seriously but largely draws on the same creationist argumentation as above.

I really don't think we can defend having an article on a pseudoarchaeologist when we can't even source the fact that he was a pseudoarchaeologist. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cline, Eric H. (2007). From Eden to Exile: Unraveling Mysteries of the Bible. National Geographic. two short paragraphs on Ark and capture by Kurdish separatists in a popular work on biblical archaeology.
  • Seesengood, Robert Paul (2016). The Bible in Motion. De Gruyter. pp. 216–218. description of a 2006 documentary Testimony of the Ark, marginally useful
  • Danforth, Loring M. (2016). "Finding Science in the Quran". Crossing the Kingdom: Portraits of Saudi Arabia. p. 131. ticks the pseudoarchaeologist box if needed, just a short mention but i'll quote for the "useful for Wikipedia to have an article":

    [Dr. Lamya Shahin, a physician who serves as director of outreach for Islamic Education Foundation] ended her talk with a discussion of the Muslim perspective on homosexuality, which drew heavily on the work of Ron Wyatt, the Biblical pseudoarchaeologist, best known for his “discovery” of Noah’s ark on Mount Ararat. Shahin presented detailed geological evidence (including satellite mapping and geochemical analysis) demonstrating that balls of sulphur and fire from nearby volcanic eruptions had destroyed the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. This, she said, proved scientifically that homosexuality was against the will of God and that gays and lesbians were evil...

  • Gierlowski-Kordesch, Elizabeth H. (1998). "Discovered Sodom and Gomorrah!". Biblical Archaeology Review. 24 (5): 60–62. on the above balls of sulphur and fire, general comments from the editors on Wyatt and a geologist invited to comment
  • "See Ark City?". News Sentinel. Knoxville, TN. August 17, 1997. most in depth news i've found out of a bunch of brief mentions, kind of shows the problem here, quotes John D. Morris for "...not accepted by those who've done the scientific work"
Thanks much for the generous compliment jps! I expect this will turn out like most others, can probably dredge up enough to meet notability but the real question is does anyone have the inclination, time, and ability to write the thing. fiveby(zero) 00:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proquest? Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WLEB-LP

[edit]
WLEB-LP (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:GNG. No secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Raiter

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Michael Raiter (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)

Last AfD was 7 months ago and no consensus. I still believe he fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. There is no inherent notability in any of the roles he has had. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imago Universi

[edit]
Imago Universi (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)

Stub article that seems to be little more than a dictionary definition - a search for sources indicates that there may not be much scope for well-sourced expansion. Mccapra (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like a disambiguation page, but with no links. Maybe the spanish book of that name is notable? Not sure. --C messier (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mlaka Maliro

[edit]
Mlaka Maliro (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:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. Can't find sufficient sources to establish notability in any context. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart: in this case, subject had the album titled Dzanja Lalemba that was the bestseller 14 years ago countrywide. Subject is also the pioneer of Malawi Contemporary Music and one of the country's notable musician [2]https://mwnation.com/mlaka-soldier-set-for-stage-reunion/.
  2. Has released two or more albums on a major record label: subject has released 13 albums under the renowed and the first band in Malawi, the Zembani Band, owned by Lucius Banda [3]https://mwnation.com/mlaka-soldier-set-for-stage-reunion/, [4]https://mwnation.com/mlaka-rolls-back-hands-of-time/ . I found this that talks about subject. I also found records in printed books, see here, and this in Dutch , this too, etc. To me this provides GNG that can be used to sustain the article per WP:NEXIST.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]

Categories for discussion

[edit]

Miscellaneous

[edit]

References

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard&oldid=926383616"