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

21 June 2024


Alerts for Christianity-related articles

Today's featured articles

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

(55 more...)

Redirects for discussion

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

(2 more...)

Good topic candidates

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(3 more...)

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(12 more...)


Christianity Deletion list


Christianity[edit]

Bash-n-the-Code[edit]

Bash-n-the-Code (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWTJ-LP[edit]

WWTJ-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)

Insufficient-notability low-power religious FM. Redirect conversion reverted by IP. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and New York. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or restore redirect to List of radio stations in New York: any time a BLAR is contested for such a non-notable entity, it reduces the value of publicly retaining the page history any further. This is the type of radio station article (LPFM, started within the last decade or so) that, after the 2021 RfC that finally abolished the previous, more existence-based and non-GNG inclusion standards in this topic area, we have been (very) slowly trying to purge when they are remnants of the previous standards — this 2023-created article isn't even that. We need actual significant coverage — the FCC, the station itself, and Radio-Locator aren't enough anymore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh[edit]

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh (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)

Opening this deletion discussion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE on the talk page (here). Would love to hear editors' thoughts going forward. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would urge anyone who comments in this discussion to look on the talk page from (one of) the subjects of the article. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is too notable to delete. Maryam Rostampour is arguably notable as well, despite the fact that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is the only one of the two with continuing coverage. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Christianity, Islam, Iran, and Georgia (U.S. state). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh exists as a draft. Assuming that both women are notable, perhaps Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh could be added to article space after any necessary improvements are made, and this article could be moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller (her current name), thereby preserving the edit history. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If agreement is that there is enough information to split, I think this is a good idea. Otherwise, I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh's name be removed from this article per request and this article moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller per your suggestion. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split I think it is reasonable to have this specific article deleted. However, I would be open to the thought of having a separate article for Maryam Rostampour if she is notable enough. Marziyeh Amirizadeh on the surface level appears to be a notable figure (I have not done much research into her life though), so I would be more comfortable with having a separate article for her. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A person claiming to be one of the subjects of the article requested that it be deleted because they don't want to be associated with the other person? The title is probably inappropriate and would be more appropriate as something else but this does appear to be a notable event. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the editor claiming to be the subject says on the talk page that she paid $300 to have her Wikipedia article written. Is this the current draft, created by an editor who has edited no other topic? PamD 22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 25 June 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 speedy keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure)‎. StAnselm (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fathers of the Church[edit]

The Fathers of the Church (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 fail WP:GNG and WP:BOOKS, with only primary sources used in article. A BEFORE search is complicated by the title of the series. Google Books and Google Scholar turn up citations to individual books in the series, but I can find no secondary coverage of the series as a series. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the book exists! [2] [3] and there are reviews [4] [5] Not sure where to go with this. It's a massive undertaking so is probably notable in its field but not enough coverage yet— Iadmc♫talk  03:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Logos has the entire 130 volumes for sale electronically for a cool $2365.00 before discounts. Not every book sold by Logos is notable, but many (most?) of them are, and recognized as reference volumes for Christian and adjacent religious studies. How many of the 130 included volumes are individually notable? I have no idea. We've had previous discussions on book series articles recently, and looking at this in that light, I'm relatively certain this should be kept, but more research would be reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens and @Iadmc - Looks like three of the four links posted above are to direct links to the individual books, not reviews, but the Sage Publications link is to a 1948 review of the series. If we can turn up one or two more reviews of the series itself, I will consider that sufficient to keep and withdraw the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was hard to find those! I'll try though soon — Iadmc♫talk  14:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I was not able to turn them up in my BEFORE search but I would like to keep the article if we can establish additional sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was just a discussion on how series relate to NBOOKS, last month I think, and I believe the general consensus was that a series involving multiple notable books merited an article. Of course, it would then have to list or link to those books, which it currently does not. Jclemens (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From that discussion, actually, I'd say that a series article without individual book articles to link to can be a sensible outcome per WP:PAGEDECIDE when individual books are notable but readers will be better served by series-level coverage. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LEvalyn @Jclemens Can you share a link to that discussion? I am operating off the WP:NBOOK policy, which does not address series. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dclemens1971 Sure, it's here. Looking more closely, there were a few folks who wanted to treat "large general-topic publisher book series" different from, e.g. Game of Thrones-style series. But if folks are able to turn up NBOOK reviews for a few of the individual books in this particular series, there would at least be a case to be made. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, let's see what comes up. After reading the debate, I'm reluctant to withdraw this nomination on the basis of proposals that have not been adopted as policy; my read of the governing policy would still require WP:GNG to be demonstrated for a series even if individual books are notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But each book having it's own article would be mad! Better to have them under one umbrella surely? — Iadmc♫talk  18:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the dearth of reviews I'm not sure how many are notable on their own anyway. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commment: I'll throw my two cents in: I think that if the series is published as a series and there are many reviews for the individual books (but those are not independently notable themselves) then the series should be treated as notable. That said, it should absolutely be up to the quality of the reviews and where they were published. Offhand the reviews for the series looks to be pretty numerous. They seem to get routinely reviewed in The Heythrop Journal and Scripta Theologica, but have also received reviews from Isis (journal), New Blackfriars, and so on. My workplace's database is pulling up hundreds of reviews. Granted I haven't been able to verify them all, but that does point fairly heavily towards notability and I do think it would be a disservice to not cover the series because there aren't enough individual volumes that are notable. That's kind of taking a "not seeing the forest for the trees" approach. Besides, with something like this it's usually better to just cover the series rather than the individual volumes in order to prevent the creation of dozens of articles (assuming that the individual books are notable). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Offhand I am seeing enough reviews to where I could probably argue individual notability and articles for some volumes, but I think that might be a waste considering that these would likely be multiple stub articles. Better to have the one article and cut off unnecessary individual ones. (Here is what I'm seeing, if anyone is curious.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are dozens of reviews of articles in the series: people write reviews every time a new one comes out: so the series is certainly notable, with many reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some books in the series are independently notable and were previously published. Augustine's The City of God has been published in many different versions over the centuries, for example, and thus there are many reviews. But are there reviews of the version published in this series? Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When I take a look: yes. The reviews are specifically of these editions, and evaluate things like the editors' selection of sermons to include and the usefulness of the footnotes. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm neutral on whether the article should be kept, but if it is kept it should be renamed as The Fathers of the Church should redirect to Church Fathers, easily a primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having had a chance to comb through some of the reviews, I'm seeing too much to justify either deletion, or articles about the individual books. As far as I can work out, all of the 100+ volumes has gotten at least one serious, scholarly review. If you look them up individually by title & translator you start to get clear NBOOK passes, e.g., the first two I tried, vol. 70 [6][7] and vol. 131 [8][9][10]. This appears to be a thoroughly notable series. As for the name, I am not excited about renaming but The Fathers of the Church (series) works for me. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. Given the commentary here, I won't prolong the debate. Keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:31, 26 June 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.

Daughters of Mary Immaculate (Chaldean)[edit]

Daughters of Mary Immaculate (Chaldean) (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:NORG, is dependent upon primary sources and lacks any reliable independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a possible Merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge. Clearly deleting information on a century-old religious order does not benefit Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romy Tiongco[edit]

Romy Tiongco (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 article does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Philippines, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the two programmes on the BBC all about him and the first of these and its report his on him were what led me to start this page and think him notable enough - perhaps via general notability rather than as a politician per se. A political activist, NGO worker and then politician (Msrasnw (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment - maybe you should find more sources, only 2 out of the 7 sources work.
    TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are 2 "working" sources, that should be enough for WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the sources is a video source which does not work anymore, is one source okay? TheNuggeteer (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Our "policy" on this is WP:LINKROT, and it being dead should not be taken against the article, more so if the reference is more than a decade old.
    So no, your premise of this article having just one source doesn't hold. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did a WP:BEFORE search outside of the sources in the article and can't find anything which suggests to me that the article passes WP:GNG. The non-working links do not necessarily suggest there was secondary coverage of him, either - the magazine just has a wordpress site and the BBC radio bit is an interview, which are not secondary. SportingFlyer T·C 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traders Point Christian Church[edit]

Traders Point Christian Church (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. Only one source is independent and significant. User:Namiba 14:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Indiana. User:Namiba 14:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: First hit in Gsearch is their own website, then it's off into un-RS... The article uses primary sources now and I don't find coverage of this church. Having the fastest growing congregation in 2016 isn't terribly notable and the rest isn't helpful for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's significant coverage in a book (see Diamond, 2003), as well as in Indianapolis Monthly. The Indy Star coverage available can support facts in the article but doesn't go toward notability because (even though some is in great depth) it's generally coverage of new locations and inclusion in "fastest growing" lists that WP:ORGCRIT excludes. Even so, the Diamond book and Indianapolis Monthly piece should cross the bar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above by Dclemen1971, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per the two above, but I'd like to see a lot more about the church's history than 'it started in 1834...oh it's a megachurch now' and its history needs to be seriously filled in. Nate • (chatter) 21:44, 19 June 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"