Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Recent changes of Christianity-related talkpages

16 September 2014

15 September 2014

14 September 2014

13 September 2014

12 September 2014

11 September 2014


Alerts for Christianity-related articles

Articles for deletion
Proposed deletions
Categories for discussion
(1 more...)
Good article nominees
Good article reassessments


Christianity Deletion list



Christianity[edit]

Keion Henderson[edit]

Keion Henderson (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Keion Henderson" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Probable autobiography on an utterly non-notable person. Swpbtalk 15:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete - I don't know if utterly or not but the subject seems not notable. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete No indications of notability here, not even on a local scale. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 20:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Amilton of Christ[edit]

Amilton of Christ (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Amilton of Christ" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Looks like self-promotion. JMK (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Sister Beatrice Jefferson-Brown[edit]

Sister Beatrice Jefferson-Brown (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sister Beatrice Jefferson-Brown" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

I don't believe that this person is notable. She is simply one of many nuns. Fails GNG, a simple Google search returns nothing Gbawden (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, undoubtedly a good person who did good works, but there isn't the third party coverage required to meet WP:BIO here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC).

Evangelical Mission Ministries[edit]

Evangelical Mission Ministries (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Evangelical Mission Ministries" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

No evidence of meeting WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 01:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Missionary Diocese of Australia[edit]

Missionary Diocese of Australia (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Missionary Diocese of Australia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

the topic is not notable, a WP:BEFORE checked yield no usable references. Wayne Jayes (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom, no coverage in independent sources whatsoever. Jinkinson talk to me 18:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep -- Assuming good faith, the contnet should be verifiable, even if not verified. Efferctively this is a small denomination in Australia. It claims to have several parishes. In US the denomination has 10,000 adherents: small but not insignificant. It is clearly not a matter of self-appointed titles. Unfortunately, we do not know how large it si in Australia. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete  Fails WP:V.  Even if the topic is notable, and there seemed to be some coverage in Gbooks, without any inline citations, the article requires a complete rewrite.  There is also BLP material that lacks inline citations that needs to be removed.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, I figure there's room for some detail on the organisation of the denomination somewhere, but WP:V is a problem and having such detail on the organisation of a small schismatic church is probably WP:UNDUE as well. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC).

Koichi Aoyagi[edit]

Koichi Aoyagi (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Koichi Aoyagi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

No sources outside of LDS Church News pbp 02:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep To begin with, the claim of the sources is incorrect. There are other sources listed than the Church News. Secondly, as was explained earlier, due to their nature, members of the second quorum of the 70 meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
It fails GNG as written. All the sources are either written by Aoyagi himself or are connected with the body from which he draws his notability. There is no specific guideline that says general authorities are notable, so we defer to GNG, which this person fails. pbp 02:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Here is a link to the discussion on Randy D. Funk [1] where there were very convincing arguments put forward on why such articles should be kept. I have to say that this is part of a long-standing pattern of vexatious attacks on LDS related articles by pbp.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    • "Convincing". LOL. Vojen's "argument" ignores GNG, which is the only relevant policy around here. As for the "vexatious attacks" argument, there are a lot of LDS-related articles out there that are not compliant with policy. It's not an attack to demand that they be in compliance. pbp 02:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete no coverage in independent secondary sources, fails GNG and any relevant SNG. Article is mainly consisting of original research. Cavarrone 03:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Keep Per Vojen's excellent argument here, his position of notability as a general authority of the LDS Church trumps GNG guidelines. That nomination failed. I feel confident this one will too, just as the Wilford W. Andersen article failed 2 nominations, the first because of a mass nomination and the second because of Vojen's argument. Presiding Bishopric members don't serve until death either. Are articles about them to be nominated for deletion as well? Where do we draw the line? As I mentioned on the Deletion Review Discussion for the Vinson article, where do we draw the line? There are other articles here on Wikipedia that use either entirely LDS-related sources or no sources at all, and I don't see them being nominated for deletion. I don't see why those articles aren't being contested, but these ones (being as heavy in LDS sources as they are) are being challenged. Next you'll be telling me that since past LDS church leaders are dead, their Wikipedia articles should be deleted, since they have no more relevance now that they are not alive. Where will it end? I still believe the better way (the higher road, if you will) would be to discuss article issues on the talk page before they are nominated for deletion. That's the whole purpose of talk pages--to deal with article issues. So I wonder why that isn't being done. I still think we do articles a great disservice by nominating them for deletion before we discuss issues relating to articles that aren't up to Wikipedia policy. I believe all articles created could meet Wikipedia policy if editors worked together trying to improve articles such as this instead of having to spend time discussing whether to delete or keep such articles before the real issues with them even have a chance to be addressed. At least, that's the way I see it. As with all deletion discussions, this will likely be my one and only comment. I've said what I came to say. I now leave it to the consensus to decide. At the outset, I would encourage those discussing this issue to remember to assume good faith on the part of each person posting and to be civil in the dialogue of the discussion. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is my position. GNG is not the appropriate standard for these people; it's a default standard that can provide for notability if none of the people standards apply. I would refer anyone to the people notability criteria if they really think GNG is the only relevant policy around here. Looking just at notability for people, high-ranking clergy generally come in based on the honor afforded to the position, the quasi-political authority that they hold, and the status as an expert in their fields afforded by the office.
A clear rule for clergy would be preferable, but the general concensus has been that high-ranking clergy are nonetheless notable even without one. The common denominator appears to be the office itself, not sources. If notability is established under the people standards, then "independent" sources are not required to source an article, just "reliable" sources. It's easy to conflate this standard with the GNG rules, but they are seperate standards. That said truly independent third-party sources are still best for a good article.
As sources are still important to show notability, below are primarily independent sources that demonstrate Aoyagi's status based on his office (these are not meant to show the kind of converage that would meet GNG, but rather to show how assumption of the office changes Aoyagi's notability). Not surprisingly the most substantive coverage of his work and ministry (wc?) is in the Japanese sources, but the English sources demonstrate essentially the same thing to a lesser degree. If the community insists on GNG, then I say delete the article. If however, the people notability standards apply (which I think they do), then the below sources should be sufficient to demonstrate the notability based on the office. From there it is just a question of reliable sources which the church-affiliate sources appear to be despite questions of independence. The blogs might not be as "reliable" for sourcing the article, but they can still serve in establishing notability.
English:
http://searchingthescriptures.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/helping-hands/ (Independent analysis of Aoyagi's teachings)
http://www.mission.net/japan/sendai/page.php?pg_id=5269 (independent account of need to secure Aoyagi and others after earthquake because of leadership role)
http://www.morumon.org/seniormissionarieswfhistory-19.htm (independent memoir mentioning young Aoyagi prior to his appointment)
http://elderjosephgandy.blogspot.com/ (missionary blog reference)
http://mormonendowment.com/734/mormon-temple-groundbreaking-in-sapporo-japan (blog reference)
Japanese:
www.geocities.jp/daiendow/ET/ET20100321.pdf (independent newsletter - one step above a blog, but not an established publication by any means - reporting on activities of church in Japan with extensive coverage of Aoyagi's activities)
www.geocities.jp/daiendow/ET/ET20100221.pdf (additional reference to Aoyagi from same newsletter source)
http://blog.goo.ne.jp/yoriissouno/e/1230e74f8e8bdd94260f79b922c6e5eb (independent blog mentioning instruction and guidance given by Aoyagi on a church visit)
http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/yamano0305/52053790.html (independent blog expressing excitement at Aoyagi's visit to the church in Ube in Yamaguchi-ken)
http://www.morumon.org/gospelsharingtabuchi.htm (independent blog post expressing awe and comfort at visit from Aoyagi during a time of illness)
http://www.morumon.org/newsroomapostleapr09.htm (unofficial translation of LDS news release with additional commentary on Aoyagi because of the local interest in Japan)
http://morumon.org/japanesemembersaoyagiarticleFeb2014.htm (independent analysis of an article that was published by Aoyagi to members of the LDS church in Japan - see p. 2-4 of http://ldschurch.jp/bc/content/Japan/local-page/2014/2014-02LocalForWeb.pdf for original article)
Sorry for the length, but about half of it is the sources themselves. -Vojen (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Except for one problem, Vojen: Your "sources" are unreliable. They're just blogs that happen to mention Aoyagi's name. Also, your argument is predicated on ignoring GNG, which in my mind is a major no-no pbp 13:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I readily admitted they are not "reliable" enough for GNG. I included them to demonstrate that these guys are equivalent in standing to a Catholic bishop. They are reliable enough for that purpose as they are third party sources showing lots of unrelated people holding Aoyagi out to be a high-ranking member of the clergy. The Endo Times articles (the first two Japanese newsletter sources) in particular are definitely stronger than blogs. This is a newsletter for the LDS Japanese disapora that has readers in Alaska, Texas, and Seattle (see the 21 March 2010 issue), in addition to readers in Japan, but I don't think it is quite to the GNG level because it's a newsletter, not a newspaper. Anyhow, my primary concern is consistency. I don't think any of the Second Quorum guys will meet GNG because of their work prior to the church office (though I could be wrong in the individual case), so either they are analogous to a Catholic bishop, which means we keep them all, or they are not which means we delete them all. I'm not changing my vote, but I'd be okay with either outcome, and would actually prefer deleting them all to the inconsistency we have now.
Of course my interpretation of the Catholic bishop rule may be wrong (a reasonable conclusion as my argument is just an implied extension of the people notability guidelines and not explicitly stated...but then that is the way rules work, otherwise we would never have gotten Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board of Education). For comparason purposes, it looks like a lot of the Catholic bishop articles are pretty weak as well. Just pulling two at random, see Francis B. Schulte and Bernard William Schmitt, the only source these articles cite is http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/. This site looks to be about the equivalent of http://www.gapages.com/, which we could cite for all of the LDS guys (and many of them actually do cite there as an External Link, see Nathan Eldon Tanner), but I wouldn't consider either site to meet the GNG source requirements. Others might disagree. I've got nothing against the Catholic bishop articles and would like to keep them, but to be consistent maybe we need to get rid of the Catholic bishop rule entirely. Vojen (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - Church publications, blogs, and other trifles do not establish notability for individuals in this project. The level of zeal and meticulous source-squeezing for any and all name-drops of the subject suggests a Scientology-level of inappropriate advocacy editing. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Vojen and Jgstokes and have added references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The sources are no more reliable than the (unreliable) sources that were already in the article. pbp 04:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Given the absence of third-party sources or in-depth coverage, it's hard to see how this article satisfies the basic notability criteria at WP:GNG. --DAJF (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Until someone can explain why this article is attacked, while the less sourced article on Francis B. Schulte remains unassailed, this comes off as a troublesome nomination with no ground to stand on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@Johnpacklambert:, if anybody's attacking anyone, it's you. You've just presented a textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument: just because there's a related poorly-sourced article in no way justifies keeping this one, nor am I under any other obligation to nominate Schulte because I nominated this article. Not only is your comment a complete non-sequitur, it's disruptive. You've been told by numerous editors that it is acceptable for me to nominate these, and that you've exaggerated by claiming that my AfDs are attacks. But, if you want to continue exaggerating, go ahead and take this to ANI if you want. There won't be an iota of action taken. pbp 04:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Honor Oak Christian Fellowship Centre[edit]

Honor Oak Christian Fellowship Centre (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Honor Oak Christian Fellowship Centre" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

WP: MILL church Mr. Guye (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
You should not expect to find everything important on-line! You will not have eben helped by my not getting the riught link - now corrected. And please login so that the rest of us know who you are. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Further comment -- The fact that two people (one with WP bio-article) wrote critiques suggests to me that they tought it notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. I read the article, google searched and did a news search. There is nothing there which suggests notability. The article has a single reference which I can't find in any of the usual places, suggesting it is self published or perhaps some kind of pamphlet. Szzuk (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)[edit]

No articles proposed for deletion at this time

Categories for discussion[edit]

Miscellaneous[edit]

References[edit]