Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion and Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Article alerts
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Christianity. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Christianity|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Christianity. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Christianity

[edit]

Sada-e-Umeed

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Sada-e-Umeed (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)

Notability issue. WP:GNG Wikibear47 (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Good News Voice

[edit]
The Good News Voice (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)

After a review of the references in the article, I'm not convinced this network meets WP:NCORP. The sources included here are merely FCC records and the website for the organization, and a source for additional sourcing came up empty. Let'srun (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almohad conquest of Evora (1191)

[edit]
Almohad conquest of Evora (1191) (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)

Reason: This event never happened. Évora was captured by Portugal in 1165 and was never reconquered by the Muslims, see [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] All the sources I gave are reliable and modern. The user who created this article and a few other people have already debated with me regarding this issue on the talk page of this article and others, for example in the Siege of Silves (1191) and stopped answering my replies after failing to disprove my claims. I will be addressing the sources they provided for this page. The first two don't say anything about this event at all, they only refer to the Almohad campaign of 1191, with 0 mention of Évora. The third citation is simply stating what the chronicler "Ibn Abi Zar" wrote, which is a primary source, so if we follow WP:AGEMATTERS, it cannot be used. I don't really have an explanation for the fourth source, however it contradicts more modern sources, so once again we should resort to WP:AGEMATTERS. The fifth source is similar to the third one, it is simply stating what a chronicler wrote but this time it's a different one, someone by the name of "El Édris". The sixth source does not state anything about this event at all, seems to be a case of WP:OR. The seventh and last source is the exact same scenario as the fifth. It's simply stating what "El Édris" wrote, basically another case of WP:AGEMATTERS. Javext (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out another thing since I forgot about it. Even in the primary sources they only state that Évora and other cities were captured, maybe a case of sloppy writing or something like that. They give no detail about its conquest so even if it did happen, its just not enough to create a page. Javext (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i still wait for you answer i pinged you @Javext Tahanido (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond to your comment right here.
Your comment: "you didnt explain who is this elidriss and my sources are considered secondary source even if they take a primary source on reference .when i used your source its only a fault sorry"
First off, "El Édris" was mentioned in YOUR source not mine. He was most likely an Almohad chronicler, though what he was does not really matter since we all know his works are considered primary sources. Your sources where his name is in aren't just using him simply as a reference, but rather they literally say "según el Edris" which in English translates to "according to El Edris". This means that the authors of these sources are not analyzing the primary works and doing their own research, but rather they are simply stating what Édris said, therefore citing the primary source in question or the ones where he was mentioned are basically the same thing.
I didn't understand what you meant on your last phrase, what are you even trying to say?? Javext (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, let’s clear up this "El Idriss" mystery. I’m starting to wonder if you’ve discovered a secret Almohad chronicler that no historian knows about! Because, seriously, after asking about him seven times, you still haven’t told us who "El Idriss" is. I’ve checked all the sources—multiple times, mind you—and there’s no sign of an “El Idriss.” Are you sure you didn’t mix him up with someone? Maybe he’s a character from one of your dreams?
Let me help you out: the actual chroniclers from that period are Ibn al-Athir, Ibn Idhari, and Al-Bakri—you know, the ones with real historical credentials. If you’re going to claim "según El Idriss" in your sources, you’d better show us where exactly they say that. Otherwise, you’re just throwing around names like some kind of medieval fan-fiction writer. So until you can provide a single valid source mentioning this mystery man, I’ll stick to facts, thanks!
Secondly, even if this "Idriss" was cited, it wouldn’t change the fact that you clearly don’t know how secondary sources work. They’re used to analyze or build on primary sources, not create brand-new information. Historians aren’t just making things up—they rely on actual evidence. So, maybe learn how sources work before throwing random names around?
Lastly, I’ll admit, using your source was a mistake. yours just seem to come with imaginary chroniclers. Tahanido (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First off, personal attacks won't help your case, we are here to discuss about this page not to try to offend each other.
Now, I am amazed how you didn't even read your sources well enough to see where "El Édris" is mentioned, but no worries I can show you. First source where he is mentioned is in French and it states "suivant El Édris", page 153, line 10, see here Second and last, is in Spanish and it states "según El Edris", page 292 line 34, see here
"If you’re going to claim "según El Idriss" in your sources, you’d better show us where exactly they say that." What are you even saying? These are NOT my sources, these are literally yours.. I seriously do not want to be rude or anything but are you even paying attention, do you even know what we are talking about?
Second point. I clearly know how secondary sources work, hence why I am telling you that these sources you used are not preferred per wikipedia policy. The authors have done 0 work on the supposed conquest of Évora by the Almohads, all of them simply stated that, in english translation, "according to [Name of a chronicler (primary source)]" and then gave a name of a bunch of cities. The chroniclers were either "El Édris" as shown in the 2 sources I already gave earlier in this message, or "Ibn Abi Zar" as you can see here (your own source)
"I’ll admit, using your source was a mistake." Using my source, what do you mean???
Last point, EVEN if the almohad conquest of évora ever happen (which I strongly believe it didn't) you do NOT have enough information and detail to create a page about it. Everything you had is nothing that can't be gleaned from the article's title. Javext (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Javext: Just to note that everything after "If you’re going to claim" in the comment you responded to was AI generated. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me, I did find weird his comment but I thought that maybe he was using google translate so I didn't bother to point it out. Keep up the good work. Javext (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re confused: in this case, "El Idris" (or "El Édris") is not a historian. It’s referring to a city, not a chronicler. You're misinterpreting the context. When you see “según El Édris,” or "suivant el edriss" it’s referring to geographical data or a place, not someone giving a historical account. Tahanido (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how an author would say, in english translation, "According to (a city)" to state historical events.
It only makes sense that they are referring to a person. Javext (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Created by sock, probably AI generated and there are reliable sources that say it was not captured.
RobertJohnson35 (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems to be nonsense?
Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Barroca, Mário Jorge (2006). "Portugal". In Alan V. Murray (ed.). The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. pp. 979–984.
  2. ^ A history of portugal. CUP Archive. 1947-01-19. p. 103.
  3. ^ Grande enciclopédia portuguesa e brasileira: ilustrada com cêrca de 15.000 gravuras e 400 estampas a côres (in Portuguese). Editorial Enciclopédia. 1959.
  4. ^ Stanislawski, Dan (2014-11-11). The Individuality of Portugal: A Study in Historical-Political Geography. University of Texas Press. p. 175. ISBN 978-1-4773-0509-6.
  5. ^ Kaufmann, J. E.; Kaufmann, H. W. (2019-07-30). Castle to Fortress: Medieval to Post-Modern Fortifications in the Lands of the Former Roman Empire. Pen and Sword. ISBN 978-1-5267-3688-8.
  6. ^ Fiolhais, Carlos; Franco, José Eduardo; Paiva, José Pedro (2021-12-06). The Global History of Portugal: From Pre-History to the Modern World. Liverpool University Press. ISBN 978-1-80207-133-7.
  7. ^ Hyland, Paul (1996). Backwards Out of the Big World: A Voyage Into Portugal. HarperCollins. p. 171. ISBN 978-0-00-255556-2.

List of pievi

[edit]
List of pievi (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)

The contents look like a disambiguation page, yet none of these entries would be known under the name "Pieve" alone, so no disambiguation is required.

The name suggests it's a list of pievi. However, pievi were very numerous, and this list would be woefully incomplete if this is the goal. I don't think it's feasible or necessary for Wikipedia to have a list of pievi.

The descriptions refer to the present-day non-ecclesiastical administrative territorial entities named after these historic no-longer extant and non-notable ecclesiastical administrative territorial entities. A minority of the listed articles do describe the history of the related pievi, eg. Città della Pieve#History and Pieve di Cento#History. Daask (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public image of Mother Teresa

[edit]
Previous AfDs for this article:
Public image of Mother Teresa (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)

Started as a WP:POVFORK [1] and since then it has changed quite a bit but it never really improved. This article is not about her public image, which is overwhelmingly positive, (and not a notable topic which does not pass WP:GNG), it is about certain criticisms of her. For some reason the article got moved [2]. Criticism should be in the main article and this POVFORK should be removed. Polygnotus (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: COI users are allowed to have an opinion (even those who disagree with me ). See WP:COIEDIT and WP:COIADVICE. Do you know any reliable sources that are about her public image and not her as a person? Do you think it is a good idea that all criticism was removed from the article about her and moved to this, far more obscure, article? And that, possibly as a result of the move from Criticism of... to Public image of..., the criticism got hidden even further down the page? Polygnotus (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your encouragement to discussion! Perusing JSTOR, I'm finding some pieces like this. Generally, they come from the late 1990s and are heaving on the sociology (not necessarily bad, especially in a subjective subject). I have objections over centering criticisms like Hitchens's on her biographical article—one of a few significant marks against his legacy—but generally agree that we need to exercise caution in any diminishment of sustained and impactful criticism. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting to see how some people are overly cautious with anything approaching COI while others... are not. ;-) Of course, the criticism comes not just from Hitchens. People like Aroup Chatterjee and Tariq Ali and Mihir Bose and even people who worked for her like Hemley Gonzalez and Susan Shields et cetera have famously criticized her work. There are a lot of very important people who said very positive things about her; let's be fair and balance that out with some of the criticism. MLK jr got a criticism section. You can probably write a criticism section for Ghandi. I am quoting myself, and when I wrote that the Mother Teresa article still had a criticism section. No matter what happens here, the criticism will return anyway. It never left, despite attempts to hide it. Polygnotus (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: sorry I forgot to ping. Polygnotus (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Critics say grossly inadequate medical care was given to the sick and dying. Syringes were reused without sterilisation, pain relief was non-existent or negligible, and conditions were unhygienic. Meanwhile, Mother Teresa spent much of her time travelling around the world in a private plane to meet political leaders. -- The Guardian. Polygnotus (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at WP:SIZESPLIT, over 9000 words means "Probably should be divided or trimmed". The main article currently got only 5000 words. I flipped it around. If it would be fair then that shouldn't matter, right? But it does cause it isn't.
Finally, how competent are the sisters at managing pain? On a short visit, I could not judge the power of the spiritual approach, but I was disturbed to learn the formulary includes no strong analgesics. Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Teresa's approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement. I know which I prefer.' Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet from 1990 to 1995. PMID: 7818649 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(94)92353-1 Polygnotus (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: I still feel too COI to formally !vote, but you've convinced me. I now favor deletion. Thanks for your comments. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article was previously nominated for deletion on August 2023. The article's current title came as a result of that discussion. I was the one who removed the criticism section but I retained the criticism against her since it would be a violation of NPOV to remove it. You do not need such a section to include criticism about a person. The NPOV policy discourages such sections anyway. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Church Festival

[edit]
Big Church Festival (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)

I boldy merged this article over a year ago, but just noticed that my redirect was reverted in October. This festival fails WP:NCONCERT/WP:NCORP (which I think applies because this is a non-profit festival, i.e., an organization that puts on an event once a year). I have been unable to find sustained, in-depth coverage of the festival. As there is still merged content in Christian music festival#Worldwide, I propose restoring the redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant is a personal opinion not a notability factor and promotionalism can be edited out, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editor frequently argues an article is relevant or irrelevant, I'm not sure what that means. Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Looks irrelevant and not sure about the notability of the subject.Santoshsah4 (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by [l]ooks irrelevant? If you're not sure about the notability of the subject, why do you think this article should be kept? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Santoshsah4. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Insillaciv (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Van Bik

[edit]
David Van Bik (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)

A (very interesting) article about a Bible translator that unfortunately fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO for lack of WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. The two main sources for the article are both WP:SPS and thus prima facie unreliable. One is a collection of remembrances by Van Bik's friend; the other is a self-published (Xulon Press) book by a close friend of Van Bik and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing else of use. Don't see a valid redirect target. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bible, Christianity, and Myanmar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a bit of a stretch, but per ANYBIO #2 The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, I'm seeing him referenced briefly in the academic missiological literature as a translator:
    "This was followed by David Van Bik and Robert G. Johnson’s translation of the Old Testament, published by United Bible Society through BSI in 1978" in Haokip, D.L. (2020). "Bible Translation in Kuki-Chin of Indo-Myanmar and Bangladesh: A Historical Analysis." In: Behera, M. (eds) Tribal Studies in India. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9026-6_7
    "More Chin students, including well-known Chin Bible translators, David Van Bik and Stephen Hre Kio, came and studied in the United States afterward." in Mang, P. Z. (2023). Chin Diaspora Christianity in the United States. Theology Today, 80(2), 173-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/00405736231172682 Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it seems like a stretch... there are a lot of people who work as Bible translators in the world's many languages, and I don't know that these brief references constitute a "widely recognized contribution." The second reference claims him to be "well known" but the rest of the sourcing doesn't validate that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Taking a cursory look at the article, the source formatting is impressive and I initially believed that the subject was undoubtedly noteworthy. But looking at a sources a bit more reveals how narrow and superficial they are. The article's sources all come from just one book. Looking just at the PDF of the book reveals some serious problems (besides the fact that it is written in, yes, Comic Sans). First of all, the book seems to be self-published, which immediately excludes it as a reliable source per WP:RSSELF. The article also takes some of the exaggerated claims in the book as fact when it should not. Looking at [3] it looks like a WP:BLOG. It goes without saying that the article is sort of a mess, and its sources are no different. The subject fails the widespread, independent secondary sources usually required for notability. GuardianH (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article's sources all come from just one book is not a correct statement. The majority of the sources do, including quoting separate chapter authors so it seems more diverse than it is, but not all sources come from that book. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    --> Correction: yes, I meant to say most sources, rather than all. GuardianH (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]

Categories for discussion

[edit]

Miscellaneous

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Christianity&oldid=1245969529"