Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DX)
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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Christianity.
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

Bradfield Abbey edit

Bradfield Abbey (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 notability, the one reliable source Is the one referenced on the page which makes it clear the charter refering to the abbey having been built is probably fraudulent. I can find no other historical source that references any abbey existing in Bradfield. Tim Landy (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (denomination) edit

AfDs for this article:
Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (denomination) (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)

Micro-denomination of three churches with no reliable sources to establish notability via significant coverage. All existing sources fail to establish notability:

  1. Link - Primary Source
  2. Link - Appears to be a reliable source with coverage on page 15, but note on page 2 that the author of the coverage on page 15 is/was a senior leader within the subject of the article and thus this source is not independent.
  3. Link. Self-published source of questionable reliability, not updated for a decade.
  4. Link Primary source
  5. Link - Erroneously cited and fails verification. The citation describes as "Doctrines of the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church"; the actual title of the paper is different.
  6. Link - Fails verification for notability; does not reference subject.
  7. Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
  8. Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
  9. Link - Primary source
  10. Link - Primary source
  11. Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
  12. Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages. Fails verification for notability.
  13. Link - Primary source

Editors arguing for "Keep" in the 2022 non-consensus AfD discussion depended heavily on 2 and 5; however, as I've shown here, 2 is not an independent source for notability, and 5 fails verification. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States edit

AfDs for this article:
Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (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)

Defunct micro-denomination that existed for less than 10 years. It is not included in any of the authoritative encyclopedic sources (e.g. Melton). Can find no sources to establish notability under GNG or NORG. Existing sources in the article are unreliable or unverifiable. My analysis follows:

  1. Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
  2. Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages
  3. Link - Primary source
  4. Banner of Truth magazine. This magazine is not available online (see here) and thus this citation is unverifiable.
  5. British Church Newspaper. Likewise unavailable online and thus unverifiable.
  6. Link - Primary source
  7. Link - Discussion board; user-generated content.
  8. Link - Primary source
  9. Link - Primary source
  10. Link - Primary source
  11. Link - Self-published primary source

During the 2006 AfD, which resulted in no consensus, those arguing for "keep" tended not to make policy-based arguments. Additionally, they specifically pointed to the British Church Newspaper and Banner of Truth Magazine citations as proving notability. After 18 years, however, these publications remain unavailable online (including in the Internet Archive) and thus cannot be verified. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Invalid reasoning. A source that is not online remains verifiable by a trip to a library. Dead-tree sources are perfectly legitimate. And a denomination being defunct really doesn't matter. If it was notable once, it remains notabvle. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the 2006 discussion, this is the full text in one of the dead-tree sources: "On January 13-14, 2006, a new Presbyterian denomination was formed. During delegate meetings in Philadelphia, PA, the body adopted the name Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (WPCUS). The founding churches came together because of perceived equivocation towards important biblical doctines and because of tolerance of excesses in contemporary worship in other Presbyterian denominations." Sounds like WP:TRIVIALMENTION to me. I've made every effort to verify its existence; however, the comprehensive Banner of Truth magazine archive does not include this citation (see page 99, where no such article is referenced in the April 2006 issue). The WP:BURDEN is on the editor who added the material to add a verifiable, reliable source, and this isn't. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gharqad edit

Gharqad (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)

Hello Wikipedians,

I don't know why we need an article about a biblical plant on Wikipedia. In fact, upon checking further, I didn't find any strong references to this plant in religious scriptures like the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran.

Even this article has a Critical assessment section, where it says that the topic "Gharqad" is insignificant and antisemitic. I fully agree with that, and that's why I believe there is no place for such an insignificant and antisemitic post on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I don't think Wikipedia is a place for expressing any personal research or opinion, so there is no point in having a critical assessment section.

This article itself claims that among the hundreds of books of Islamic hadith narrations, there are only two that actually mention this plant. Even if we think it's an Islamic topic, there are not enough Islamic references. Also, this article proves that two hadiths are misinterpreted with a few points. Again, Wikipedia is not a place for investigating hadith or any religious book.

If we want to consider this article as an article about the Gharqad plant, this article actually confuses the readers. This article provides no specific details on the plant. Instead, it says Nitraria retusa, Nitraria schoberi, Lycium shawii, Lycium schweinfurthii could be some candidates for the gharqad tree. But there is no reference to that. Wikipedia doesn't accept any personal research.

It looks like this article is on the topic of Antisemitism in Islam. In that case, we can move some contents that have proper references to that article.

This is my opinion. I believe this article in this format will mislead people and create more hate towards Jews. This article supports Muslim and Christian extremists to validate their ideologies. On the other hand, for the Zionist moment, it also fuels their ideology that all Muslims are antisemitic.

What do you think about this article? Should we keep it by reformatting properly and removing antisemitic and personal research-based comments, or remove this and move relevant content to the Antisemitism in Islam page?

Thank you. Your valid opinion is needed.

- Sajid (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am against deletion, here is why

Why is this article nominated for deletion? That topic is extremely discussed; there are religious-studies articles about it, major international newspaper articles about it, vibrant discord about it in the general media and so on.

About some things User:Sajidmahamud835 said above:

  • I don't know why we need an article about a biblical plant on Wikipedia

  • This plant is by no means biblical, it's hadithic.

  • I didn't find any strong references to this plant in religious scriptures like the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran.

  • Have you found any references at all in these books? There aren't. Again, it's hadific and hadith is a major literature in Islam.

  • This article itself claims that among the hundreds of books of Islamic hadith narrations, there are only two that actually mention this plant. Even if we think it's an Islamic topic, there are not enough Islamic references. Also, this article proves that two hadiths are misinterpreted with a few points. Again, Wikipedia is not a place for investigating hadith or any religious book.

  • So what? These are major hadith collections and there are more than two references for this plant in these hadiths; in fact these hadiths are from the broader hadith group of The stones and trees hadiths.

  • If we want to consider this article as an article about the Gharqad plant, this article actually confuses the readers. This article provides no specific details on the plant. Instead, it says Nitraria retusa, Nitraria schoberi, Lycium shawii, Lycium schweinfurthii could be some candidates for the gharqad tree. But there is no reference to that. Wikipedia doesn't accept any personal research.

  • The first versions of the article didn't have this mess; it mentioned only the genuses Nitraria and Lycium.

  • It looks like this article is on the topic of Antisemitism in Islam. In that case, we can move some contents that have proper references to that article.

  • Why? What is your problem that there would be a single unified article about this, easily maintained in one place by the community?

  • This is my opinion. I believe this article in this format will mislead people and create more hate towards Jews. This article supports Muslim and Christian extremists to validate their ideologies. On the other hand, for the Zionist moment, it also fuels their ideology that all Muslims are antisemitic.

  • I don't know why you thought about Christian extremists and Zionist extremists because they don't accept this text as sacred but anyway, why would the truth about this concept mislead anyone if that person doesn't believe in a invading version of Islam?

  • What do you think about this article? Should we keep it by reformatting properly and removing antisemitic and personal research-based comments, or remove this and move relevant content to the Antisemitism in Islam page?

  • How can you make something which is inherantly antisemitic (anti Jewish to be precise) as not antisemetic? I don't think Sunni Muslims will take you seriously if you'll tell them that their books are different than what they evidently are. No need in deleting anything besides maybe the pictures, and summerize the opener passage a bit.

Thanks. 2A10:8012:7:97C7:C80E:5AB0:F714:BE78 (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow contributor,
Firstly, I extend a warm welcome and sincere gratitude for your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Your input is greatly appreciated.
Thank you for sharing your perspective on this matter. Your insights will certainly be taken into account as we navigate this discussion.
Allow me to address some of the points you raised regarding the deletion discussion:
  • Regarding the term "Biblical plant," it's important to note that the term "Bible" encompasses various religious scriptures, not solely those of Christianity. It's analogous to the Quran in Islam. My apologies if this caused any confusion.
  • As for the term "Hadithic," I understand your concern. Perhaps "from Hadith tradition" would be a more suitable phrasing to avoid any misinterpretation. Still, is it necessary to have a separate article on a plant from Hadith tradition?
  • In Wikipedia, we adhere to strict guidelines regarding sourcing, especially when it comes to religious texts. While Hadith is indeed a significant aspect of Islamic tradition, we must ensure that information is presented in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality.
  • The complexity of Hadith presents challenges in citation. While we respect its importance within Islamic scholarship, we must exercise caution in its usage to maintain clarity and avoid misinterpretation. I won't blame you, its common among Muslims to use Hadith as reference, but when its comes to such controversial stuffs, Hadith isn't enough. I am not saying we don't respect Hadith, we just need some verifiable reference. You claimed all Jews will follow the anticrist (Al-Masih ad-Dajjal), who will be pretending as Jesus, and later all of them will be defeated by real Jesus and the [Imam]] of Muslims, this is totaly antisemitic. Its like saying all Jews are bad. We even saw this kind of publication before the The Holocaust.
  • As its directly against Jews and makes them look Evil, Wikipedia cannot emphasis this kind of articles. Maybe we can keep some of the contents in Antisemitism in Islam or in the Nitraria article.
  • Regarding the mention of specific groups within Islam for example Sunni or Shia, it's crucial to maintain neutrality and avoid privileging one perspective over another. We cannot say 2 hadith book that has mentioned this plant is better than other hundreds of books especially the four books of Shia. Wikipedia strives to present a balanced view that encompasses diverse viewpoints within a topic.
  • Regarding the article itself, my intent in initiating this discussion was to address concerns about its overall quality and relevance. Whether through revision, consolidation, or removal, our goal is to ensure that Wikipedia maintains its standards of accuracy and neutrality.
Look, having too many news on something or too many people talking on a topic doesn't make it legitimate to have a dedicated article on that topic in Wikipedia. It will be shame full for Wikipedia if extremists (whatever they are Muslim, Christian, Zionist, Jewish, or Atheist) quote Wikipedia while spreading hate speech. Having this kind of Article will aid them spreading their ideology.
I appreciate your efforts to uphold Wikipedia's standards and your commitment to constructive dialogue. Together, we can work towards a resolution that aligns with Wikipedia's principles and fosters a platform of inclusive knowledge sharing.
Thank you for your continued engagement in this important discussion.
"Warm regards,
Sajid (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sajid, hello. It's hadithic, not biblical or quranic and not anything else and yes "appears in the hadith" is a good phrasing and it's important that there will be an article about it because it's both notable and concerns the life of people and taken seriously by some muslims of the invading version of Islam. I didn't claim anything by myself; it's all there in these hadiths plain and simple and quoted by the letter. I believe the article has strong notability and the community can decide further. Thanks. 2A10:8012:7:97C7:C80E:5AB0:F714:BE78 (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So what is the policy-based reason that the article should be deleted? Please keep it to a sentence or two, the wall of text above doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, @Oaktree b ,
    Thank you. Here are the policy-based reasons:
    • Neutral point of view (NPOV): The article may fail to present information in a neutral manner, especially if it contains potentially antisemitic content. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
    • Verifiability: Content sourced from religious texts like Hadith should be verifiable and presented in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia:Verifiability
    • No original research: Content should be based on reliable secondary sources rather than personal interpretation or analysis. Wikipedia:No_original_research
    Also, there is some false information, but that could be fixed. Overall, in my view, its a useless article promoting antisemitism dehumanizing Jews, and telling a story that gives legitimacy to extremists to kill innocent Jews.
    Thank you for your valuable time. I am seeking your opinion on this.
    Regards,
    Sajid (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not one of these is a deletion criterion. These are criteria for editing, which is what you ought to be doing with this article if you don't approve of it. Central and Adams (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no particular problem with this article. gidonb (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Gidonb. Thank you for your valuable opinion. Any advice on improving this article to make it better? Sajid (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Since you asked, I would recommend not making any changes. gidonb (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Ridiculous nomination. Not only do the sources already in the article meet the GNG, but there are plenty more from GScholar which could be included. Nominator should fix the article if they don't approve, but the subject is very, very clearly notable. Central and Adams (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So, per the explanation above, all can be fixed by editing the article. The sources used all seem to be RS and we have extensive coverage. We don't delete things for simply not being neutral in tone, that can easily be rewritten. Easy !Keep Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; nom has yet to provide a convincing explanation as to why the article ought to be deleted. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [T/C] 16:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this discussion should be on the article's talk page, not here. LizardJr8 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The "hadith of the Gharqad tree" is semi-notorious in discussions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and was kind of the emotional centerpiece of the 1988 Hamas charter (it mysteriously went missing in the 2017 version of the charter, after repeated quoting of that passage from the 1988 charter made them sound like crazed Jew-hating loons). AnonMoos (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since no valid rationale for deletion was brought forward and no one ever thought that this should be deleted, I believe this is eligible for quick closure. I have expressed my opinion so will refrain from closing but would appreciate it if the next person could close. There are already so many other open AfDs! gidonb (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant concept. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Book of Mormon places edit

List of Book of Mormon places (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)

Wp:gng - one or two of these list items are notable for their own article. There are no secondary sources about places in the book of mormon, leaving this as a partial list as derived by individual interpreters from the book of mormon. This should be deleted until reliable secondary sources write something meaningful here Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waters of Mormon edit

Waters of Mormon (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 doesn't meet wp:gng What little reference it does have is a passing mention used to describe a plot point. No secondary sources cover this topic in depth. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Gill (priest) edit

Arthur Gill (priest) (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)

There appears to be insufficient notability for this priest. Chumpih t 19:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Or, failing that, redirect to Archdeacon of Cloyne. As with other similar articles by the creator contributor, there is nothing to indicate that the subject has any notability independent of the role/job that they held. The sources in the article (including this directory style entry alongside HUNDREDS (thousands?) of other clerical people) do not constitute material biographical coverage. Nor can I find any. The sources barely support (as the creator, frankly, should have done) a sentence or two about the subject WP:WITHIN the article on the role that they held. Other than for the "completionist" reasons that seems to have driven most of the creator's submissions, there is nothing to support or justify a short sub-stub/stand-alone biographical entry. Guliolopez (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources to validate notability of this individual. Unlike bishops, archdeacons are not inherently notable by virtue of their office. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ștefan Buchiu edit

Ștefan Buchiu (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 really see the types of references that would confirm notability per WP:PROF. Perhaps they exist (I couldn’t find any), but they aren’t here.

Out of the 18 references, 12 are from the official news agency (Basilica), newspaper (Lumina) or head office of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Two are the subject’s CVs hosted on his university’s site, while a third is on the site of the Musical Society with which he collaborated. Two are passing mentions from other theological seminaries. Finally, we have his CV reproduced in an obscure newspaper (Cuvântul Olteniei), probably sent by a press officer. Biruitorul Talk 07:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for initiating this discussion regarding the notability of Prof. Ștefan Buchiu and for your concerns about the types of references cited. It is indeed true that a portion of the references come from sources related to the Romanian Orthodox Church, such as the Basilica News Agency and Lumina newspaper. This is largely because Fr. Prof. Buchiu's contributions and activities are within the ecclesiastical and theological community. As a prominent figure in this domain, I believe coverage by these specialized sources is both expected and appropriate, reflecting his standing and influence in the field.
    In response to the need for additional independent sources, I have updated the article to include references to three significant books that discuss Prof. Buchiu’s biography and contributions to Orthodox theology. These books are reputable academic publications, providing a critical and scholarly view of his work and impact. Notably, one of these books is a festschrift in his honor, published on his 70th birthday, which includes contributions from fellow academics, underscoring his notability in the theological community. Such festschrifts are recognized in academia as significant honors that reflect a scholar's impact in their field.
    Moreover, the event of his 70th birthday itself, which was marked by significant academic and ecclesiastical gatherings, further supports his notability under the criteria outlined in WP:PROF. This event and the publication of the festschrift are indicative of his standing within the theological community enhancing the article's credibility and alignment with Wikipedia's notability standards for academics.
    Given these points, and considering the detailed criteria under WP:PROF, Prof. Buchiu’s scholarly output and his role in advancing Orthodox theology both domestically and internationally are documented and significant. His career enriches academic and theological discourse, making the retention of this article valuable for Wikipedia's coverage of notable academic figures in theology. KoreSoteria (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for those additional sources. The entry in Păcurariu, for example, is a good indication of notability. Let’s see if anyone else wishes to add something to the discussion. — Biruitorul Talk 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I am not familiar with the expected academic output in this field, but 21 citations since 2008 and an h-index of 3 on GS seem very low to me. There could be other metrics involved, such as the quality of the journals or the publishing houses where those publications appeared, but I cannot evaluate those. Turgidson (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have included additional authoritative references to Prof. Ștefan Buchiu's Wikipedia page to further substantiate his notability. The article now contains references from the Library of Congress Authorities and the Bibliothèque nationale de France, which are highly reputable sources that affirm Prof. Buchiu's academic standing. These sources provide a strong independent confirmation of his scholarly work and are indicative of his recognition in academic libraries globally. I believe these additions significantly strengthen the case for notability per WP:PROF. KoreSoteria (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln edit

Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln (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 congregation has no notability. St Helen's Church, Lincoln is grade II* listed and rightly has a separate article; Holy Cross Church has no claim to notability, and nor does the joint congregation which worships at the two churches. A merge proposal template was removed from the St Helen's article with no explanation, after a brief discussion of the proposed merge (propose, oppose from creator of both the articles, one further comment from proposer). I considered just redirecting this article to St Helen's but bring it here to get further eyes on the discussion. A Redirect to St Helen's Church, Lincoln would be my preferred outcome from this AfD. PamD 07:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. PamD 07:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to St Helen's Church, Lincoln or just redirect. There is mergeable content. The congregation are not notable for an article, per nom., but the joint use of this and another church by a single congregation is worth mention on the merge target page - it is the current use of this church. It is a small merge, but a merge nonetheless. The merge discussion has the page creator arguing for the notability of Holy Cross. I don't think those arguments pass muster, but they are not a reason to keep this page which is specifically about the joint congregation. A Holy Cross church article could be created although my view is that it would not meet notability requirements and should not be attempted without sufficient reliable secondary sourcing. I didn't see where the merge header was removed, but it clearly lacked visibility, so the discussion here is appropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboy The article on St Helen's already includes "The church is joined with the nearby Holy Cross Church as the "Congregation of Holy Cross and St Helen's".", with a link to the parish website. Is that enough? The merge header was removed earlier today with the uninformative edit summary "Slight tweaks". PamD 09:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see it now. Yes, on the basis the information is already there, I have unbolded my merge and bolded redirect instead in this edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree the two churches are linked and can be covered in St Helen's Church, Lincoln. There isn't a church called Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln, so that title as a redirect may be of limited use. For readers to find content on Holy Cross it would need a redirect page, titled "Holy Cross Church, Boultham" or such like. The main discussion point regarding a merge is whether there should be an infobox for each church, just for one of the churches or a combined one. Found brief local news reports on Holy Cross's opening in 1940, which can be used for additional factual content. None of the references currently in the article count towards notability and so far I haven't found feature length coverage. Rupples (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that one article is sufficient to cover both churches however it is accomplished. Esemgee (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Holy Cross church needs to be covered at all, except perhaps in a list of churches in Lincoln. It appears to have no claim to notability. PamD 13:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy Cross is mentioned in Boultham and Wikiproject UKGEOG content guidelines for settlements say to note churches within their locality WP:UKTOWNS#Religious sites — it doesn't state the church has to be notable for inclusion. Rupples (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Churches mentioned in settlement articles don't have to have their own article. Maybe this article should be renamed and redirected to St Helen's Church. Esemgee (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Take it you mean 'redirect' rather than 'article' as the closing word in the first sentence? Yes, agree with a retitle, and redirect to St Helen's but I've seen an admin state not to do this before the AfD closes. Suppose we'd recommend redirect under the current title then rename the redirect page. Rupples (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC). Strike, maybe misread. Rupples (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WHFL-CD edit

WHFL-CD (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) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Brandt edit

AfDs for this article:
Tommy Brandt (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)

Non notable musician. Has multiple sources but they are either bylined to him or is an interview. Has a big laundry list of awards but none are major. Claims lots of #1 singles but they're are not on the countries national chart. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A search found nothing better. (last afd was for a different Tommy Brandt) duffbeerforme (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Decision edit

AfDs for this article:
Eternal Decision (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)

There are no references in the article and I can't find any reliable sources online covering the band. XabqEfdg (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. XabqEfdg (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Oklahoma. Skynxnex (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see plenty of non-RS, looks like they last put anything out in 2005, and their albums are still available via eBay. Not my area of expertise, but I suspect this might be saveable if someone can find reviews. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as they do have a staff written AllMusic bio here which states that their first album was released in 16 countries to considerable acclaim. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I dug for sources and did not find any reliable ones. I unfortunately think an Allmusic bio is not enough when not coupled with reviews. According to this page, there exists one review in HM Magazine (formerly Heaven's Metal Magazine), but that's a bit thin as well. Scene-wise, the lack of coverage is not unexpected either, seeing as thrash metal was long out of favour when this band started releasing. Geschichte (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Gechichte. I also cannot find anything sufficint to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:NBAND

Jershon edit

Jershon (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)

Wp:gng. This is an in universe location with little attention inside LDS circles, and none in independent reliable sources - especially no indepth coverage we could use to build an article Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secret combination (Latter Day Saints) edit

Secret combination (Latter Day Saints) (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)

Per wp:notdict and wp:gng, this is a definition of an in universe phrase using only in universe sources. No secondary sources seem to have spent time writing anything in depth about the use of the phrase secret combination in Mormon culture Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The statement that No secondary sources seem to have spent time writing anything in depth about the use of the phrase secret combination is not quite accurate. Looking through Google Scholar reveals the following:
    • Dan Vogel, "Mormonism's 'Anti-Masonick Bible'", John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 9 (1989): 17–30), with discussion of how it was a euphemism for Freemasonry.
    • Seth R. Payne, "Satan's Plan: The Book of Mormon, Glenn Beck and Modern Conspiracy", paper presented at a 2014 meeting of the American Academy of Religion held in Calgary, Canada and released on SSRN: mentions how the phrase was an anti-Masonic euphemism in the nineteenth century and became a term popular among Latter-day Saint conspiracy theorists in the twenty-first century.
    • Patrick Q. Mason, "Ezra Taft Benson and Modern (Book of) Mormon Conservatism", in Out of Obscurity: Mormonism Since 1845, eds. Patrick Q. Mason and John G. Turner (Oxford University Press, 2016), 63–80, about how LDS Church president and Dwight D. Eisenhower cabinet member Ezra Taft Benson used the phrase "secret combination" and applied it to his right-wing understanding of U. S. politics.
    • Robert A. Goldberg, "From New Deal to New Right", in Thunder from the Right: Ezra Taft Benson in Mormonism and Politics, ed. Matthew L. Harris (University of Illinois Press, 2019), 68–96, also about Benson's use of the term "secret combination" in his politics.
Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes, we could reduce the entire article to "'secret combination' is an LDS-specific shibboleth that means 'alliance of evildoers'". As the sources cited above make clear, the term is not generally used or meaningful to anyone outside the LDS movement. But even within the movement it means different things at different times (e.g. the distinctive and personal interpretation by Ezra Taft Benson described in the Mason source above vs. the anti-Freemasonry version described in the Vogel source above). I can see how from an LDS perspective they could be collected based on their common origin into one article, but as a reader and contributor to a general encyclopedia I think that a standalone article probably doesn't help our readers as much as directing them to more useful, contextual information about the few disparate instances where the term's invocation (not just origin) is worth discussing.
    So, is there any interest in replacing this unbalanced article with two or three entries in the parent secret combination DAB pointing interested readers to those existing articles, something like "a term for groups of evildoers in the Book of Ether", "a term historically used to distinguish between Mormonism and Freemasonry", "a term used by politician Ezra Taft Benson to describe political conspiracies", that sort of thing? Those articles should already be talking about "secret combinations", and if they aren't, well, that's interesting too, but it could be rectified in those articles using some of the sources provided above, I would think. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- First, the sources already in the article are sufficient to meet GNG. Second, there are very many other sources available via GScholar. Central and Adams (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, its a borderline case but I think on review we are slightly over the GNG line here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Presbytery, Bible Presbyterian Church edit

AfDs for this article:
Faith Presbytery, Bible Presbyterian 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)

Micro-denomination with perhaps nine churches as of 2014, per a self-published source (citing other self-published sources) that is no longer available online. Citations are exclusively to primary sources, to self-published sources, or to outdated sources of questionable independence and reliability. Participants in the 2022 AfD discussion did not delve deeply into the validity of the sources cited as applied to WP:NORG, which I will do here:

  • [1]. Self-published source citing other self-published sources; not updated since 2014.
  • [2]. Self-published book; does not illuminate notability of subject, just reference one of its views and its existence.
  • [3]. Blog/opinion post; does not meet reliable source criteria for establishing notability.
  • [4]. Dead link with no archived version.
  • [5]. Book published by Redeeming the Time (RTT) Publications, which is the publishing arm of the subject and thus not independent of the subject.
  • [6]. Portuguese-language source; cannot tell if it is self-published. Regardless, it is not significant coverage and merely notes the existence of the subject.
  • [7]. OPC General Assembly minutes and thus disqualified as primary source.
  • [8]. Personal blog; self-published source.
  • [9] Newsletter published by Redeeming the Time (RTT) Publications, which is the publishing arm of the subject and thus not independent of the subject.

I cannot identify any other independent, secondary, reliable sources that verify the notability of this denomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pentecostal Mission edit

The Pentecostal Mission (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 - I could not find significant coverage of this church in reliable sources independent of the subject. HenryMP02 (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Maria Murella, Montasola edit

Santa Maria Murella, Montasola (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)

Initially proded with the reason 'This church is not notable enough (WP:GNG). Doesn't even exist in Italian Wikipedia'. I do think that English Wikipedia notability guidelines are among the strictest out of all Wikipedias, namely because English is a common internet language. Therefore, I am not sure if it can pass, given that no other Wikipedia (even Italian) has this. Per WP:NBUILD:

Buildings 'may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Also, are sources only in Italian (or only in a language other than English) allowed? JuniperChill (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. JuniperChill (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unfortunately, Italian heritage listing is not great, but in most other western countries a medieval or Baroque church would undoubtedly be heritage listed and would therefore pass WP:GEOFEAT so I think this is certainly notable. Yes, of course non-English sources are acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here? Although this Wikipedia is likely the strictest out of all, we somehow allow special and very old buildings here even though there is only one source, and that is only in Italian. So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable? This article may not be meet GNG and it is a very obscure place. This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine. Ie i dont see it as notable. This can also apply to Houghton Mill where it is a National Trust site, but only has a source and very few people know it (I just looked up random NT sites that are not very popular) so should be gone. JuniperChill (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable? Yes, of course they are, per WP:GEOFEAT. Houghton Mill is a Grade II*-listed building. I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here? Yup. This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine. Ie i dont see it as notable. That's not really relevant to Wikipedia notability. Others do. This article could certainly do with more sourcing, but buildings of this age are definitely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Romanesque church probably built on the ruins of a temple, Roman age or earlier. It means a 2000 years or more old building. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Montasola. With deep respect for the experienced editors that have previously contributed to this discussion, I can't find myself agreeing with the Keep !votes above:
  1. WP:NBUILDING specifically states that Buildings ... may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability (my emphasis). The Keep !votes above recognise that Santa Maria Murella might have historic/architectural importance, but ignore the lack of coverage, which is a case exactly anticipated by the relevant notability guideline here. Nobody has presented any "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources", and the best I could find was an entry from an office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy, which I'm not sure whether we can regard as "third-party".
  2. Even if notability is met, WP:NOPAGE suggests that if covering a topic as part of a parent article would improve readability, we need not have a standalone article. It seems that the existing sources have little to say that can sustain a lengthy article on Santa Maria Murella: the church and its history can be adequately summarised in a few paragraphs at Montasola. Seeing as Santa Maria Murella, Montasola claims that the church...was located at the site of the Roman city of Laurum, which seems to be its most important feature according to previous !votes, the church is probably easier understood in the context of Montasola's history. In my experience, this is not uncommon for non-notable churches (and let's be honest: many places have churches that date back several centuries, though the current buildings might not be the original ones).
  3. As an alternative to deletion, a merge allows the preservation of the page history should significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources emerge per WP:NBUILDING.
I note that Rococo1700 created articles for two other churches in the town (Santi Pietro e Tommaso, Montasola, San Michele Arcangelo, Montasola), which have nothing to support their notability except an entry on the local council's website. On their userpage, they write that their aim for new entries is to try to have at least two "independent" sources, so I suspect this collection of articles results from inexperienced editing, and may also need to be reviewed. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also, yes, I think articles containing only non-English-language sources are perfectly fine (cf. WP:NONENG). Here's one I made earlier. The non-availability of English-language sources suggests that the topic might not be the most interesting for English-language readers, but it doesn't detract from the topic's notability. Cf. WP:INTERESTING: Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals and our readers and potential readers include everyone on the planet. Any subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect to Montasola, until such time as more/better sources turn up (in whatever language).Ingratis (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source: Italian, gives details on the church's history.[1] Rupples (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That source is from a office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy. The homepage explicitly makes clear that the project is a census of Italian churches, creat[ing] a national database of Italian churches. Your mileage may vary, but to me, this doesn't constitute an independent source, and consequently it doesn't contribute to significant coverage or notability. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWBK-LP edit

WWBK-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)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K21JQ-D edit

K21JQ-D (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) 02:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KRLB-LD edit

KRLB-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) 02:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed fundamentalism edit

Reformed fundamentalism (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 is an ill-defined religious "movement". I doubt anyone identifies themselves as a Reformed fundamentalist. That's not necessarily fatal, but makes it harder to identify what the group is. You can google "Reformed fundamentalism" and find lots of hits, but many of them will be using it as a pejorative and foil for something else. I think it is possible that a phenomenon called "Reformed fundamentalism" exists as something that could be defined using reliable independent sources, but it would be difficult and this article does not even begin to attempt it. I think the current Christian fundamentalism page appears to do this quite well for that group, most of which would also not self-identify. But I think there are zero independent reliable sources in this article (even Packer is not independent), so I think the best course is WP:TNT. The article is original research sourced mostly to different groups and their beliefs, almost none of which identify themselves as "Reformed fundamentalists." The closest would be Packer's Fundamentalism and the Word of God, since Packer would identify as Reformed and wrote a book on fundamentalism. But even there Packer was writing a polemic to a broader audience than the Reformed world; he was not arguing for "Reformed fundamentalism" but Christian fundamentalism. Jfhutson (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It looks like this might close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 24 April 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=1220731072"