- Cristo Rey San Diego High School (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 GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE fail WP:SIRS, nothing addressing the subject - the San Diego campus - directly and indepth. Article is a unneeded CFORK of Cristo Rey Network, no objection to a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 17:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Per WP:ORGCRIT, local units of larger organizations need to show coverage of the sub-unit beyond the local area. All reliable, secondary sources cited here are local to San Diego. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Cristo Rey Network. No sources found outside of non-independent or non-local media that meet SIGCOV requirements. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Kat&Jared (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)
Biography for a Christian Rock group that has no sources aside from their personal website - reads like promotional material. Searches did not turn up any coverage of this group in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Kalloor (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)
See Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Kalloor (" the place in Tamil Nadu, India, where the Apostle Thomas, one of the 12 disciples of Jesus, is believed to have been killed"). Possible hoax, and unreferenced. Fails WP:V. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Totally unsourced, and most of it unverifiable. That alone suggests deletion, but checking the history of the article, I find the original text (which is still there, with minor changes, but more has been added) is sufficiently out of line with anything in any source that I can find to make it fairly clear that it was a hoax. The result of that is that we have an article which is totally unsourced, most of ut unsourceable, and a significant part of it probably a hoax. No justification at all for keeping it. JBW (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @JBW In the discussion linked above @Malerisch suggested this may not be a complete hoax. In either case, this was now incorrectly speedied, sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Piotrus: Yes. Originally I thought this was certainly a hoax, but then I read that discussion, as far as it had gone at the time, and reduced my opinion to "fairly clear" that "a significant part of it [is] probably a hoax", as I said above. That is why I posted here rather than speedily deleting the article. I should have also removed the speedy deletion tag, but I missed doing that. I have now read the current version of the discussion you mentioned, and further information has been added, which makes me think it is not a hoax. However, I still think it should be deleted. JBW (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @JBW For the record, I also think it should be deleted due to lack of sourcing, but after AfD runs its course. I'll go ask at WP:AN for undeletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_undelete_incorrectly_speedily_deleted_article_(now_at_AfD):_Kalloor Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Watch Tower Society publications (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 a list covering every publication ever published by Jehovah's Witnesses. I do not think it merits inclusion per WP:NLIST. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:LINKFARM. This is a listing of every known publication (some linked, some not) generated by the Jehovah's Witnesses dating back to the 19th century, up to the current 21st Century. — Maile (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I fail to see how WP:LINKFARM applies here. As for WP:NLIST, I will quote directly from the guideline to argue for this articles existence
- "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."
- As the JW's and the WTS are in themselves notable, this list, by WP:NLIST, appears to be a valid addition. I will also copy/paste my argument from the first AfD I participated in on this topic back in 2015, as I believe the argument still stands
- "I'm drawn to this line in the WP:NOTDIRECTORY rules "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". I personally believe that this significantly contributes to the list topic (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses). Dr. Zoe Knox, in an article entitled "Writing Witness History: The Historiography of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania" (published in the Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011) notices that "While a handful of annotated bibliographies and literature reviews have been published, usually as an addendum to monographs, there has been no sustained attempt to survey and chart scholarship on Witness history", and also mentions that "the Society has placed far less importance on the production and preservation of material on the organisation’s own history, which has led to a limited engagement with historical inquiry". I believe that this list, from a purely academic standpoint, helps significantly with the latter issue as raised by Dr. Knox by providing a reference point that the JW's themselves do not."
- So in sum, I would suggest keeping this list but possibly trimming it a bit. But NOT wholesale deletion. Vyselink (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about the notability of JWs as a whole but if there are reliable sources that list stuff like "group of every JW publication since the 1800s" together. That's what NLIST is talking about since notability isn't inherited. The most notable publications (the Watchtower and Awake, Photo Drama of Creation, etc) are already somewhat covered over at Jehovah's Witnesses publications so this list is duplicative at best and otherwise "indiscriminate" at worst. I suppose one could propose a merge if you feel that strongly about it? I'm not sure it would all that useful from this perspective but I wanted to offer it as an alternative. Knox's argument about the lack of interest sounds more like a convincing argument for deletion, sadly. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Interjected comment: I would argue that this part of NINI applies here: "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums". WTS publications are books/magazines (and on occasion films) and personally I think meet the "certain circumstances". I believe that this list does however need to be trimmed (and doesn't need anywhere near as many pictures). Also, as a side note, Dr. Knox did NOT say there was a lack of interest, she said it hasn't been done. There is a difference, especially in today's academic publishing world. Vyselink (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not intend for this to be a "bundled" nomination but for context... the companion article List of Jehovah's Witnesses publications has a tag for primary sources. Since what exactly a primary source is might not be as glaringly obvious to a non-JW, these would be refs 1–16, 22–27, 29, 32, and 34. I think this list article has the potential to be improved and the tag addressed as there are some JW publications that are collectively talked about in reliable sources. List of Watch Tower Society publications (the subject of this deletion nomination) is literally intended as a list for every Watchtower publication since its inception and all of the cited references are primary sources. Hence my hesitation in suggesting a merge as a valid alternative, even if it technically is one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Vyselink’s rationale. Alternatively, move to a JW WikiProject subpage as a resource.—Jeffro77 Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What about Vyselink's rationale made you change your mind? The reason I'm asking is because you were the who started the first AfD for this back in 2015. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It became evident at the previous AfD 9 years ago that most of the editors in the JW WikiProject group considered the page to be a useful resource. Hence my suggestion at this time to instead move it to a subpage of the WikiProject. Also, do you still have exactly the same opinions about everything as you did 9 years ago?—Jeffro77 Talk 21:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, obviously people can change their opinions over time. I was just curious what exactly made you change your mind since you believed that this page should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR back then. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I also said in the previous AfD that the list of publications is available from the JW website. However, the official site omits the existence of some literature (e.g., the elders’ manuals). Additionally, for various reasons, some editors might be reluctant to use the JW official website. But as previously indicated, it may be better as a subpage of the WikiProject.—Jeffro77 Talk 22:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You're free to create subpages at the JW WikiProject, I'm not going to try and stop you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Your pointy response runs counter to my suggestion to move the page as a possible option for the AfD. As such, I have created the subpage separately.--Jeffro77 Talk 09:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The page lists publications of the Watch Tower Society, including materials that predate the existence of Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, that error does not really affect the validity of the nomination.—Jeffro77 Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sun Moon (film) (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 came across this film to review at NPP. A general overview of it showed it requires cleaning up, I tried to do that but was caught up with off wiki life. I decided to take a research on the film and later to consider if there is any source or coverage. At the end of the day, we have an article that doesn't meet WP:NFP. The sources cited were also not WP:NFSOURCES as they weren't reliable or saying/reviewing anything about the movie.
I also tried WP:ATD, and I must say here, thst there is nothing here per WP:NFOE. Additional problem of lacking coverage. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 03:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Henry Jellett (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)
No obvious notability, apart from being Dean of a Cathedral. Unsure if that position would convey notability alone. Chumpih t 17:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Honorary Chaplain to the King (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 page is fundamentally flawed. The position of Honorary Chaplain to the King is a military appointment, for serving regular and reserve chaplains in the British and some Commonwealth armed forces. However much of the text refers to Chaplains to the King, who are members of the Ecclesiastical Household of the Royal Household, and are civilians, usually senior parish priests. I do not believe that the article can be repaired. As an alternative to deletion it would have to be wholly rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncox001 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC); listed on the log at 21:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nominator's contention is incorrect - Honorary Chaplain to the King is NOT a military appointment. In recent times a number of HCs have been appointed from the forces but many are also appointed who have no link to the forces. All are absolutely part of the ecclesiastical household. As such, the assertion that the article "cannot be repaired" is flawed. It should be improved, perhaps by starting here (p304) which details the creation of the position in 1881.----Pontificalibus 06:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As lacking significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Also per WP:TNT: if someone believes this topic is notable, create a new article that's not a mess like this and with sufficient sources. AusLondonder (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeds of Hope Publishers (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 organization does not appear to pass WP:GNG
The only references not published by the organization itself is a trivial mention in the NYT and a profile of the editor, Katie Cook, in bpfna.org, who was (at the time) an editor of bpfna.org as well. While there is a list of articles under the "Further Reading" section, one of the articles was written by a student newspaper, one from Baptists Today, and the others all seem to be limited to the Waco Tribune-Herald. They are mostly from the 1990s- and I have been able to find no significant coverage since.
This is the second deletion debate this article will go through- but editors should note that the only two "keep" votes came from new accounts that did not edit anything but their own user page and the deletion discussion. While that has no bearing on the organization's notability, new Wikipedia editors will want to read the policies on canvassing and recruiting people off-Wiki before they contribute. (Unless you want to provide more sources- please, if you have them, I would like them very much) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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:
- Link - Primary Source
- 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.
- Link. Self-published source of questionable reliability, not updated for a decade.
- Link Primary source
- 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.
- Link - Fails verification for notability; does not reference subject.
- Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
- Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
- Link - Primary source
- Link - Primary source
- Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
- Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages. Fails verification for notability.
- 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 1 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! 23:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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:
- Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
- Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages
- Link - Primary source
- Banner of Truth magazine. This magazine is not available online (see here) and thus this citation is unverifiable.
- British Church Newspaper. Likewise unavailable online and thus unverifiable.
- Link - Primary source
- Link - Discussion board; user-generated content.
- Link - Primary source
- Link - Primary source
- Link - Primary source
- 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 1 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! 23:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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] - Comment: An editor has updated the link in footnote 4 to a live link. It's here -- it appears self-published but has no author listed. It appears impossible to validate its reliability, and moreover it only mentions the subject of the article in a single trivial mention on page 96. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:53, 25 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) 06:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Pretty much fails notability as shown above in the source analysis; primary sources, blogs or un-RS. I don't find anything about this particular outfit. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
| |
