Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity
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

10 June 2024

6 June 2024


Alerts for Christianity-related articles

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(7 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Requests for comments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(4 more...)

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(11 more...)


Christianity Deletion list


Christianity edit

Imperium (film series) edit

Imperium (film 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)

The article is unsourced. I don't see why this topic deserves an article as there are no sources on the Imperium series, only sources on the individual movies. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this sorted in the Romania-related discussions? Some of the production companies involved are Spanish/German/French but I see no participation of Romanian actors or producers. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:45, 12 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! 03:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the nom's implicit question is that Wikipedia:Notability, right at the top, says that we can merge up articles into a bigger subject. See also Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?, which has almost 150 comments on a closely related subject. See statements like "Where a source contains coverage of one of the books in a series of books, this coverage is deemed to be coverage of the series of books, in addition to being coverage of that book" and "Articles on book series may be created in some cases where there are no series-level sources, drawing on the sourcing of the individual books." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, what outcome are you arguing for? Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not wrong I'm pretty sure he's saying that keep is the answer, even though what he's talking about is the Notability for books. MK at your service. 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing indicates in her preferences that she would like to be referred to as she. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, last hope for some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. James Armenian Church edit

St. James Armenian 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)

Unsourced article with no indication of notability. A BEFORE search finds nothing but run-of-the-mill local coverage of the church, and it's not a registered historic building. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow United Methodist Church edit

Moscow United Methodist 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)

This appears to be a small church with no particular claim to be notable - either because of history or current activity. Suggest delete unless someone can evidence notability Newhaven lad (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found various books discussing the rise of Methodism in Russia but not this church in particular. Don't support redirect as specific location doesn't reflect the movement. BrigadierG (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BrigadierG the church is in Pennsylvania! Look again — Iadmc♫talk  18:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, how'd I miss that? It's like Category:Kiritimati all over again BrigadierG (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does your !vote stay though? — Iadmc♫talk  19:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does - I can't find any coverage of the church. BrigadierG (talk) 21:05, 7 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]

Jonas Pilling edit

Jonas Pilling (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 justification for this subject having an article is the long-running dispute between him and his parishioners, which did attract some attention from local press at the time, but it seems that much of this content could simply be rolled into the article on St Mark's Church, Huddersfield, where he was the vicar for a number of years. It is not clear to me why Pilling himself needs an article of his own. Leonstojka (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The substance of the article is bigger than Pilling himself, but he is the vehicle for the publication of that substance, because he was the subject of the event concerned. For whatever reason, he was unable to fulfil his task as a vicar in one of the most terribly deprived areas of England at the time. When the Bishop did not appear to be doing anything about this tragedy for the local poor, the local newspaper said sadly that there was much work to do (for the poor and deprived). The fact is, the Bishop left it far too long before resolving the issue for the local congregation. To understand what happened, we need the full story (as far as we can know it) of Pilling. We cannot surmise, speculate or give opinion, but what we can do is give all the facts and give the reader a chance to get a full idea of what happened. In order to give all the facts, we need the full article on Pilling. To put the whole Pilling article into the church article would be to overwhelm the latter. Besides all that, the Pilling article is in itself an interesting study on how the Anglican church dealt (or didn't deal at all) with inadequate and/or suffering priests. In this case at least, the Bishop just let it be.
Since the severe problems began in 1905, we cannot blame the interruption of World War I for the bishop's lack of action. We cannot know why the bishop behaved like that, or exactly why Pilling behaved like that, but as the article stands, we can at least look at the facts. And the facts are important for the history of Huddersfield, for the history of the church, for the history of Anglican priests, and for the history of Pilling himself. Not all Wikipedia articles have to be about heroes and success stories. Sometimes we can learn from the mistakes of the past. One thing for sure: we should not shut our eyes to what happened in Huddersfield in Pilling's time, and nor should we actively try to minimise its importance by deleting the article and shrinking it to fit into a dusty corner of another article.. Storye book (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think some attention from local press understates it a bit. This unusual dispute received coverage in papers across the UK over a period of years - e.g. the article quotes reports in the Aberdeen Journal and The Cornishman, which certainly aren't local to Huddersfield. Merging it into the article about the church itself would make that article rather long and unbalanced. Adam Sampson (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Pretty clearly a historical figure of some note amongst his contemporaries of 100 years ago. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - outside of the drama of the dispute between him and parishioners, which seems rather something of a tempest in a teacup, this is a mere footnote in the history of the church. The entire, laborious history is not notable enough to recount beyond the existing paragraph in the church's article (which could be expanded slightly if necessary). Outside of that dispute, he does not seem notable at all. WmLawson (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a "tempest in a teacup", since this church scandal lasted between 1905 and 1921, with World War I in the middle, when the poor and deprived of the area really needed church charity. At that time, vicars were in charge of the charity given by individual churches, and for many hundreds of years, England and then the United Kingdom depended primarily on the Roman Catholic Church and then the Anglican Church for charity and welfare. Apart from the religious tradition of helping the poor, the local rich people felt beholden to the church for various reasons, so that the church could ask them for money to help the poor. During Pilling's employment in that Huddersfield position, that need for the church to help the poor still pertained. Because that was one of the poorest and most deprived areas of the country, Pilling's failure would have been disastrous. If the church did not help destitute people, then destitute people died - and that situation continued in that area of Huddersfield for over fifteen years, while the church authorities looked on and did nothing, in spite of newspaper comments and public knowledge across the country.
  • Because this is a biography of Pilling, we can give the full facts of him and his life. Without that, and if the story were told from another perspective, his details would have to be curtailed, and he would just look blameworthy, whereas the facts tell us that the case was not that simple. The buck stopped with the bishop.
  • British history is what made us what we are today. Our history, good or bad, is part of our identity. Today, history is a grown-up matter - no longer merely a list of kings and wars for schoolboys to memorise. Today, history includes social history - including the histories of ordinary working people, whose biographies symbolise the lives of all the millions of people who were here before us. Today, history helps us learn from our mistakes, and goodness knows the church needs to learn from its mistakes, where past hiring of the wrong kind of priest is now very much in the limelight. Real history needs to be understood fully in all its aspects. Storye book (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Sunter edit

James Sunter (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)

Don't see how this individual is notable enough for a page, both in the general sense and in the parameters for which clerics are notable. Much of the article is unreferenced, and some of the sources at the bottom are only brief mentions. One actually focuses on the son of the subject. Leonstojka (talk) 23:48, 5 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]

WVTN-LD edit

WVTN-LD (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)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:58, 2 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! 03:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hansford edit

Simon Hansford (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)

Most of the sources are not in-depth or are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable bio which only has two sentences about his ministry. The rest is about his education and family background. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable as an important faith figure in New South Wales’ third biggest Christian denomination. All Moderators of the Uniting Church should be profiled rather than deleting them so we have record of church leadership. hSproulesLane (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No inherent notability in his position. Where are the sources to meet WP:BIO? LibStar (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a well known deletionist LibStar has made his point so I hope he will allow other editors to have their say without harassing them to accept his view of a minimalist version of an online encyclopaedia … please let others contribute without your bullying. SproulesLane (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not bullying, merely pointing out that all biographies need sources to meet WP:BIO, which you have failed to do. LibStar (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve added references from The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, The Northern Daily Leader and the NSW Government indicating his activities in resent years. SproulesLane (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for adding sources. The SMH one is a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. The NSW government one is him merely making a statement on behalf of the church and also not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Guardian article does not establish notability, it is an opinion piece by Hansford and a WP:PRIMARY source. LibStar (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:24, 10 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"