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

5 August 2024


Alerts for Christianity-related articles

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Good topic candidates

Featured article reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

(1 more...)

Articles for creation

(3 more...)


Christianity Deletion list


Christianity

[edit]
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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fifth Commandment (TV series)

[edit]
The Fifth Commandment (TV series) (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)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Note that says it can be expanded by German article isn't relevant as there are no useful citations in that version that supports notability. The other 2 languages are similar, no citations that can support notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian page has FOUR references that can clearly support notability! (+1 in a blog), including a full in-depth article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine!!! I deproDed the page (today) and indicated it was improvable....A redirect should have been considered anyway. Always should (before a PROD, before an AfD) if one has no time or will to check the sources. A See also on the page offered an obvious target. And I have only checked the other Wikipedias...... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:28, 6 August 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.

All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California)

[edit]
All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California) (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)

This appears to be a part of Carmel-by-the-Sea related walled garden. The church seems to fall under WP:BRANCH and a stand-alone article is not warranted under WP:BRANCH. I've boldly re-directed but it has been objected by the creator. WP:OTHERSTUFF argument has been made, which is not a valid reason. What I do see is that quite a few others that may also warrant being re-directed somewhere. I suggest REDIRECT or selective merge. Graywalls (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The article was accepted by @SafariScribe:. The subject is notable based on the secondary sources provided in the article. Below are two examples that meet WP:ORG and WP:SIRS. I feel the article was well written and similiar to other articles listed here: All Saints Episcopal Church.
  • Hale, Sharron Lee (1980). A Tribute to Yesterday: The History of Carmel, Carmel Valley, Big Sur, Point Lobos, Carmelite Monastery, and Los Burros. Santa Cruz, California: Valley Publishers. pp. 63–64. ISBN 9780913548738. Retrieved 2024-07-08.
  • Hardy, Maggie (March 30, 1995). "When City Hall Was A Church". Carmel Pine Cone. Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. pp. 17, 24. Retrieved 2022-06-10.

Greg Henderson (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passing AfC only means that the review felt there's a 50/50 chance or surviving AfD, nothing beyond that. Carmel Pine Cone articles aren't unusable, but they mean very little as far as notability on a world scale encyclopedia. I do question the validity of existence of many of the local church branch articles as well. This one caught my attention, because of the pattern of Carmel-by-the-Sea walled garden matter I have been acutely aware of. Graywalls (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Churches do not have inherent notability. This one, while it may be known in its local community of Carmel, it is non-notable. It is not on the NRHP. The sources above are a hyper-local weekly Carmel newspaper, and a locally-published historical trivia book about Carmel. I would not consider this independent reliable sourcing at all. Of course locals are proud of their local church, that stands to reason, however that does not confer notability. This entry fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGCRIT, WP:SIRS, WP:NCHURCH as well as WP:GNG. It also seems to be part of the Carmel/Carmel-by-the-Sea/Monterey walled-garden of articles. Netherzone (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your assessment. A secondary source by definition is a source "provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." The two cited sources in my Keep vote count for secondary sources, thus WP:SIRS. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Carmel Pine Cone is ultra hyper-local and it's not even close to meeting WP:AUD and the level of coverage in that article is not what most would consider "significant coverage". This is a local unit of larger organization and a stand-alone separate article on a local church is generally not warranted. It's only outside that generally if the local church in specific meets WP:NORG as explained in WP:NCHURCH. Graywalls (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What you are saying dosn't make any sense. A newspaper is a reliable source whether it is local or national. Why would you want to erase an article that is (a) well written article, (b) demonstrates with pictures, infobox, links, and map a church in Carmel, (c) been approved by a peer during the AfC review, (d) has nine references to reliable sources, (e) part of the All Saints Episcopal Church, and (f) contains real history and designed by architect Robert R. Jones? It makes no logical sense at all. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A newspaper is a reliable source whether it is local or national. No, it's not. And the fact that you keep repeating the same mistakes and false assertions is not helpful nor indicative that you've taken any feedback on board about why you're blocked from mainspace. AfC review has no merit on AfD, and nine sources is meaningless when they're not independent and reliable. Star Mississippi 19:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per WP:GNG a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article has 12 references to reliable sources. It has been reviewed, accepted, and published by SafariScribe per Articles for creation submission WP:AFCH. The fact that Netherzone and Graywalls continue WP:TAGTEAM my articles is questionable. Let assume good faith and understand that this article was written to provide coverage of a Episcopal Church that is historically important. The church was established in 1907, 116 years ago in a town that was just estabalishng itself. The church was designed by architect Robert R. Jones who went on the desgin the Monterey Regional Airport. The All Saints Episcopal Church page lists many U.S. All Saints Episcopal Churches. Should they be nominated too? Greg Henderson (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TAGTEAM is an essay, which means it hasn't been approved by the community, so it carries virtually no weight. And in any case, in a deletion discussion such as this, the only thing that is going to be looked at is notability and sourcing, not behavior. If you have a problem with the behavior of certain users, take them to WP:ANI with your accusations. Left guide (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Greg, I have looked at the All Saints Episcopal Church. Look at how disproportionately California centered that list is and many of them are terribly sourced, advertorial and some not even article worthy. I've tagged and re-directed some and pruned some. The presence of pre-existing substandard article should not be an excuse to add further substandard article. Graywalls (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, at least half of the buildings listed are NRHP-listed. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm not seeing any claim for the notability of the parish, and age certainly doesn't count for that. The building likewise has the kind of coverage expected in local press. Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

question mark Suggestion Upon reviewing this again, I think we all need to take a seriously consider our actions here. Deleting the article about All Saints Episcopal Church is fundamentally wrong based on WP:GNG guidelines. Removing this article would contradict the guidelines for creating a new articles, which state: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." The All Saints Episcopal Church article has nine source citations, with four coming from secondary sources and the rest from primary sources. The article includes all the essential elements: short description, infoboxes, images, navigation headers, and more. Please Keep this article and, if necessary, move it to draft space to further improve it! Greg Henderson (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, upon glancing at this again, I'm entirely unmoved. My vote stands. Ravenswing 00:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • More There is an interesting Wikipedia article about deleting at Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. It says: "Deletionism and inclusionism are opposing philosophies that largely developed within the community of volunteer editors of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. The terms reflect differing opinions on the appropriate scope of the encyclopedia and corresponding tendencies either to delete or to include a given encyclopedia article." I find this apropos to this discussion. Please consider this before deleting this important article about our history. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, kindly strike your second K**p !vote written in bold.
AfD participants may make several comments, but they are not permitted to !vote more than once. Netherzone (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone, I've simply removed the boldface, like I did before, which makes this the third time the user attempted to add a bolded !vote. Left guide (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide, thank you. Greg, please take note that A number of tools which parse AfDs will only recognize bolded words. which is from the AfD guidelines. So if your !vote is bolded more than once, the tool may double count a single editor's !vote. Netherzone (talk) 18:49, 6 August 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 keep‎. I see a rough consensus that, while the article needs improvement, the subject meets WP:AUTHOR. Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon M. Sweeney

[edit]
Jon M. Sweeney (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)

Article appears to be promotional and has been edited extensively by user:Jonmsweeney, user:Jonmsweeney1234 and user:Friedsparrow, all SPA accounts who have also added Sweeney's name to other articles.

Much promo text has been removed since the article was raised at COIN [1], what remains is poorly sourced and it does not seem clear that notability criteria have been met. Axad12 (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 31. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 07:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & fix article issues (or draftify). Yes, the article has had extensive edits by CoI accounts. However, as noted in the nom, much of the promo text has been addressed. Poorly sourced is not the same as unsourced, and it also is different from "unsourcable". A quick look through JSTOR shows that Sweeney is an often referenced academic in his field, and I think that the subject would be found to be notable with a little bit of effort. Fixing an article's issues is generally preferable to deletion (WP:ATD), and if that can't be done, it should be draftified. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Butlerblog
    Hi, yes point taken. Just to clarify on the issue of sources...
    When I said "poorly sourced" above I meant that some of the material is entirely unsourced and some of the sources that do exist are either written by Sweeney himself or are to YouTube or are promotional links to where his books can be purchased on Amazon.
    With regards to your comment re: "unsourcable", I think it's worth noting that the only person to have contributed to this article to any significant degree is the subject himself. If the subject has been unable to provide sourcing for basic info like his date of birth, place of birth, and details of his family history and educational history, then I think it's reasonable to assume that those details are indeed "unsourcable". Adding [citation needed] to that sort of thing would just be overly optimistic.
    So, it seems to me that there are genuine issues on the sourcing here for about 50% of the material in the current article. That being the case, I would also support your secondary suggestion of draftify.
    I take on board also the comments below re: reviews and WP:NAUTHOR. Axad12 (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correcting myself, in my post above I said "The subject" but I ought to have said "the subject or someone editing on his behalf " Axad12 (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and address issues. Sweeney meets WP:NAUTHOR as multiple books have been the subject of reviews in reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there are COI issues it isn't TNT level bad, so there's no use deleting this when he is notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the comments below, where is the evidence that the subject is notable? Axad12 (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did find a few reviews of his books (and added one to the article). But most of his books are un-reviewed because citing Publisher's Weekly merely means that the book was published - PW's role in the world is to provide one-paragraph "reviews" (often no more than listings) to everything they receive so that bookstores and libraries can see what has been published. Those "reviews" do not provide notability. And even if he has a few notable books, an article about a person requires reliable sourcing about that person. I went through many pages of search results and did not find any independent biographical information. I can change my mind if someone finds that information. Lamona (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lamona: Sweeney's book have been reviewed by PW, Kirkus, Booklist, and Library Journal, which are often used to establish notability. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of those are trade publications that review EVERYTHING. And their reviews are very brief. The policy says "non-trivial" and those are essentially the essence of trivial. Yes, they can be used as sources but no, they don't show notability. Aside from that, a review might show notability of an individual book, and this is an article for the author. "Wrote a lot of books" is not one of our notability criteria. Lamona (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lamona: If they review "EVERYTHING", why haven't they reviewed all of Sweeney's books? ETA: Per NBASIC, "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ('John Smith at Big Company said...' or 'Mary Jones was hired by My University') that does not discuss the subject in detail." I would argue that having a single article dedicated to a book is not trivial -- even if the review is only a paragraph or two. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Detail" A single paragraph does not provide either detail nor much analysis. But again, this is an article for a PERSON. At least one WP:AUTHOR criterion must be met. You appear to think that he meets #3 of that policy. I would need more indication that he is considered "...an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." That would be met when we would find other theologians referencing his works or writing about him. Lamona (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to be arguing that since not all of his books have been reviewed, that demonstrates that he must be notable. That seems like a very questionable claim.
    Evidently, if a non-notable author publishes a great many books the chances of some of them not appearing on the Publisher's World radar is rather high.
    That doesn't indicate that the author is notable, if anything it indicates that he is not notable.
    Realistically there will be 100s of 1,000s of non-notable authors worldwide who have published an endless stream of non-notable books. Some of their books will have been reviewed online either by PW or by some tame outlet which the author has connections to. That does not infer notability. Axad12 (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12: How do you determine which types of reviews are worthwhile to determine notability? According to WP:GNG, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The sources provided are considered reliable and independent, and given that they have full articles dedicated to each book, they also provide significant coverage. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Significa liberdade
    To be honest, I'm not sure. However, I'd assume reviews in locations which (a) do not attempt to review vast numbers of books for internal publishing industry purposes, (b) can be reliably assumed to be independent of the author, (c) carry some kind of weight (i.e. not local newspapers, blogs, fringe publications, etc.), i.e. the sorts of basic qualifications that one would expect to see in relation to other Wikipedia policies on sourcing, notability, etc.
    If any book review counts towards notability then pretty much every author ever published would qualify as notable for Wikipedia purposes - which I think we can agree cannot be correct.
    I feel to some extent that the fact that we are having this discussion on reviews demonstrates the lack of notability. E.g. for a genuinely notable author it wouldn't be necessary to consider this point because reviews in well known newspapers, magazines and periodicals would be available in abundance. Axad12 (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be adding a lot of Library Journal reviews to the page. Isn't that basically just another industry publication which mass produces reviews? Axad12 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12: Personally, I consider LJ, PW, Kirkus, and Booklist to be 1) reliable and 2) independent. Given that they provide significant coverage of each book (not just a trivial mention), I argue that they confirm notability. Can you explain why you do not consider them to be reliable or independent? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that. It was Lamona who said, above, "All of those are trade publications that review EVERYTHING".
    My opinion is that a review in a source which reviews everything, or almost everything, cannot possibly confer notability because, if it did, almost all authors who have ever had a book published would be notable by Wikipedia standards - which evidently cannot be true.
    Or do you believe that every single author who has ever had a book or two reviewed in those sources is notable by Wikipedia standards? Axad12 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12: I believe any "person has created or played a major role in co-creating a [...] collective body of work" that has "been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" is notable. My understanding is that means that any author who has had multiple books reviewed in reliable trade magazines is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Can you point to guidelines or past AfD discussions that claim otherwise? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12: I found three additional book reviews through JSTOR. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have so much time to spare, maybe try finding some sources for the content of the actual article, which is currently notably bereft of sources.
    Do be aware, however, that the subject (or someone very close to him) has been extensively COI editing the article under 3 accounts since it was set up 8 years ago, and even he was apparently unable to find sourcing for half of the material in the present article.
    Good luck!
    (P.S.: This is why 'draftify' is a very serious proposition.) Axad12 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12: Given the above, three people have !voted to keep and one delete, though they have not further replied. Personally, I believe that if we draftified, this article would pass through AfC and be back in the main space, given that it has at least three reliable, independent sources. For a suitable alternative, I could move the article to something like Jon M. Sweeney bibliography if biographical information cannot be found. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, at present it is 3:2 (rather than 3:1) in favour of Keep because, you also need to including my Delete vote as nominator. However, 2 of the 5 voters would also accept Draftify - so I would say that it is fairly close at present and the AfD really needs extra eyes on it rather than more comments from you and I.
    I brought the AfD mainly on the strength of comments on the article talk page and a feeling that the extreme WP:PROMO nature of the article a few weeks ago indicated that there were potential issues over notability.
    We've covered some issues above and I think that has been very useful, but I really think what is needed now is more eyes.
    With regard to your idea above (J.M.Sw bibliography) I would say that that would be fine as it would prevent the article from becoming clogged up again with huge amounts of COI fluff, which will be the very likely result if the result of this AfD is Keep.
    Best wishes and thanks for your thoughts above. Axad12 (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

your nomination statement counts as your delete vote Atlantic306 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 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.
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. ✗plicit 13:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Diana Chapel

[edit]
Maria Diana Chapel (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 don't see any sort of notability. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:01, 30 July 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.

Knights of St Columba

[edit]
Knights of St Columba (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)

Multiple issues. Wikipedia:Notability not established and does not meet guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Additional citations needed since 2014. The 5 references are not sufficient to establish notability given that 4 of them coming from the organisation itself. Coldupnorth (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 1 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"