Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:02, 21 June 2022

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:

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.
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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Christianity. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Christianity

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7 by page creator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa of Jesus, Child

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source cited for this article is a website in Italian that claims the Mercedarian Order observes the apparent subject’s feast day on 23 November, but a quick search for "23 November Catholic saints" shows that she is not on the saints’ calendar.

Furthermore, a Google search for a "St Teresa of Jesus" comes up with Teresa of Ávila, who was canonized in 1622 and exalted to patroness of Spain by the Cortes Generales in 1627 – exactly the same years claimed for the birth and death of this alleged saint "Teresa of Jesus, Child."

All of this points towards being a likely hoax, and a very long-lasting one at that (over 11 years). 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, indeed a blatant hoax, created to cause confusion. Note that e.g. Sanlúcar de Barrameda, the supposed death place of this child, has a relic of the real Saint Teresa. Fram (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And then you have Theresa of Lisieux Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Probably qualifies for immediate deletion via WP:SNOW. I had forgotten I created this. It was at a time when I was trying to write articles about saints or venerables who were children and this website said she was five. There are a lot of saints named Theresa, not all of them venerated in every country or included on every calendar of saints after Vatican II, if I remember my thought process at the time. I had written several others that were all in a category called Child Saints. Looking at this one again, I agree that it is completely problematic and should be deleted, probably immediately. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am tagging for speedy deletion via G7. As you appear to be the only person who has added substantial content to the page, it appears to be eligible for {{db-authorreq}}. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Agree to speedy delete. Get it gone as soon as possible. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Endorse immediate action. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should go to the hoax museum instead. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Send to the hoax museum. It’s important that we document this just like the other 10+ year old hoaxes (e.g. William Henry Farrow). 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is close, but I think delete has the strongest arguments here. That being said, there isn't anything stopping people from adding a section of Southern Episcopal Church about this Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Much like the Southern Episcopal Church that this body seems to have split from, secondary sourcing is near impossible to find. Pbritti (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Tennessee. Pbritti (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question: does it have an entry in Encyclopedia of American Religions? St Anselm (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm: Not saying it isn't in there, but I just spent about 15 minutes searching through a digital copy and could not find it. Makes sense, as the most recent publicly available edition was published about the same time the AOSEC is thought to have gotten off the ground. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, delete then. St Anselm (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Southern Episcopal Church (ie, note as a daughter/splinter denomination), per talkpage: Talk:Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church#What is the connection with the Southern Episcopal Church? –Zfish118^⋉talk 22:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zfish118: Discussion seems inaccurate. Sourcing in article shows that the both the SEC and AOSEC are the same body. There are two websites for the body and both show a bishop named Manning as the presiding bishop. Without additional sourcing, I think the comments in that discussion are erroneous original research due to the church using interchangeable titles. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason to merge them if no formal split occurred. –Zfish118^⋉talk 01:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment - Merge: The Southern Episcopal Church has multiple websites, apparently remnants from different decades that were never taken down. They all, however, consistently use a logo that says "The Southern Episcopal Church of the United States" with a subtitle: "Anglican Orthodox". It seems pretty clear that this article, the "Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church" is the same body, and this article should be redirected to Southern Episcopal Church. This article describing it as a splinter group seems to be flawed WP:Original Research, as the sole source on this page says All Saints Church is the cathedral for the Southern Episcopal Church. The talkpage references the incorporation of an entity called the "Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church" with the Tennessee secretary of state, but it is rather routine for an organization to have multiple underlying corporations. Here is a list of affiliated websites, not one of which describes a schism:

I thus conclude the logical and appropriate choice is merge and redirect, removing any reference to a schism. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found nothing on this: nothing on Google scholar, nothing on Google news, no mention in the 2009 Melton's encyclopedia of American religions. This alleged organisation clearly fails WP:GNG. Since there is nothing properly sourced, there is nothing to merge. Veverve (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly merge to Southern Episcopal Church in a separate section headed daughter denominations. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was able to locate primary sources verifying that it exists. There are conflicting primary sources over whether the Southern Episcopal Church and Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church are the same organization or if the Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church split from the Southern Episcopal Church. Regardless, I could find no independent coverage of the Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church so fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion seems to be headed towards either merging or deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VersaceSpace 🌃 04:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Anglicans and the Episcopalians are basically the same church, one exists in areas of British influence, then the Revolution happened and the American branch got renamed (but follows the same religious stuff). The Orthodox Church is what the Christian churches called themselves after the split in 1066. The first two are Protestant groups, the second are older Roman Catholic/sort-of Catholic groups. It makes no sense to try combine the two groups in my mind and that's why finding sources is difficult/impossible. Sic transit gloria mundi. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, "Orthodox" is being used generically to describe this branch of the Anglican church as "faithful to the gospel". It does not describe a relationship either the Eastern Orthodox Church or oriental churches. –Zfish118^⋉talk 20:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Southern Episcopal Church as per WP:ATD and the reasoning above by Zfish118. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Southern Episcopal Church. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The merge has been executed, with the relevant information from this article being transferred to Southern Episcopal Church. As such, the consensus would seem to be to now turn this page into a redirect for Southern Episcopal Church. I hope the next admin to come across this closes the discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti, it was premature to merge articles before this AFD had been closed. What if the closer comes to a different conclusion? All of your work must be undone. Was it such a burden to wait for this discussion to be closed before launching a merger? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: You're welcome to review the edits made to the target article using material from this article. As this AfD was not closed, I did not turn this one into a redirect or meddle with its material but did transclude the sourced content to the target. Further, despite three relists and more than a handful of requests for comment, there was no further interaction on this AfD. This is a failure of the closers and a premature accusation on your end. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not merge or copy during the AfD per the fifth/last point of WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion (how-to guide, shortcut WP:EDITATAFD). It looks like you rewrote instead of copying – WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed (guideline) – so there is no attribution dependency that would interfere with deletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at the website again, it appears that "Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church" is not the name of any denomination, but rather "Anglican" and "Orthodox", being in italics, are merely descriptors: the denomination is the Southern Episcopal Church. Hence, my !vote is still delete. St Anselm (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 00:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Episcopal Church

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet notability standards, extant only in primary sourcing from the church itself and a reference in a single comprehensive list of ecclesial bodies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All I could find that discuss the topic centrally is 1) an entry in the 2009 Melton's encyclopedia of American religions (p. 165, entry 'Southern Episcopal Church'), 2) the academic paper "Episcopal splinter groups: a study of groups which have left the Episcopal Church, 1873-1985". I found nothing on Google news. One entry in the Melton - which catalogues even very minor denominations - and one analysis in a paper, is not enough to establish WP:GNG and WP:NCHURCH. Veverve (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Veverve. These two sources are all that is needed to satisfy WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though I must confess I don't know what "repertoriates" means. St Anselm (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Veverve (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GNG states: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Only two sources cannot be considered as "multiple" (unless "multiple" is understood as 'more than one', which is obviously unlikely to be the meaning it is given in this policy). Veverve (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two good sources is "multiple," whether or not that applies in this case is a matter for discussion. Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "multiple" has always meant "more than one". St Anselm (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's multiple:

See corporate annual report at https://tnbear.tn.gov/Ecommerce/FilingDetail.aspx?CN=251123173026023201003090206059001040041195046179

denominational website at https://southernepiscopal.us/

sample parish at https://www.sacredheartepiscopal.org/

and listing at http://anglicansonline.org/communion/nic.html Soleecitor (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Soleecitor: none of those sources can qualify as reliable secondary sources that have a "significant coverage" (WP:GNG; see WP:TRIVIALMENTION) of the topic; none of those sources can establish or support the topic's notability. The first is a Business Entity Detail, the second and third are primary, the fourth one is a random website with a list making a trivial mention of the group. Veverve (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We should consider if Soleecitor has a connect to this group following comments here and in the article talk on a supposed break off from this group. ~ Pbritti (talk)

Delete for dearth of sources. The only third-party mention I could find online was the article that Veverve found. The church may merit a mention in Continuing Anglican movement, but not its own article. Jdcompguy (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per StAnselm; it is documented in two high quality sources. –Zfish118^⋉talk 22:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the secondary sources identified in this discussion, Meltons Encyclopaedia and the academic paper, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- According to the church's website, there are several dioceses, so that this is not a mere local church masquerading as a denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah Katolik Eka Prasetia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article that has been unreferenced and orphaned for ten years about an Indonesian school that is a US elementary/middle school equivalent. Articles about schools that don't cover senior high school generally get deleted or redirected, and there's no good redirect target, so here I am. Most importantly, I can't find a single source for the existence of a school with this name, and I've searched various combinations of Katolik/Catholic Eka Prasetia with the location its in Pamulang and its city of South Tangerang. I don't know any Indonesian but I haven't been able to turn up anything promising ... Graham87 08:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the unreferenced school item is of no long term value, if there was any information in the article worth keeping - it should go to the most immediate locality article (if one exists) JarrahTree 08:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I see are listings and Wikipedia mirrors. Mccapra (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a regular school that does not have any special notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Time to close this AFD. The nominator put out an offer to reorient this article, move it to a different title and expand it but this was over two weeks ago and no editor has presented these sources to take them up on this proposal so this is a straight deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope 08

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this mission had any lasting importance. Refs are all primary except the CD review, which is not really about the event but about a related album - and notability is not inherited. No after-the-fact independent coverage located on a search.

De-PROD'd with the addition of this reference, which is not great in my opinion as it's mostly reporting what some guy involved with Hope 08 said to a bunch of church leaders about church attendance increasing. It actually in no way serves as coverage of the Hope 08 campaign. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Christianity, and United Kingdom. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It appears to be a short-lived campaign run jointly by several notable Christian organisations, with no ongoing notability. I doubt it is worth merging to any of the sponsors. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Short-lived campaigns, if they receive adequate coverage, can certainly be notable, WP:NOTTEMPORARY ~Kvng (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there was adequate coverage, I wouldn't have taken it to AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to be mentioned by the BBC at least once: https://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/content/articles/2008/05/14/hope08_aston_feature.shtml would this count as coverage? The "Hope Together" mission that Hope 08 was a part of seems to be going strong https://www.hopetogether.org.uk/. Maybe rename to Hope Together and expand?Spiralwidget (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. It's published by the BBC, but there's no byline, and at the bottom, it says "send us your photos, stories and experiences and we will add them as features to the BBC Birmingham website." This suggests that the content in the above article is submitted by members of the church/movement as promotion for it. Other features from around that time on Wayback Machine indicate the same - this one was "Compiled by Young Adults from Science of Spirituality in Birmingham", whereas others like this one have bylines, indicating that they are by journalists. But even if we accepted it as significant coverage, it's only one piece, so there's still not enough for GNG. (I am not counting the source added by Kvng for the reasons outlined above.)

If Hope Together has GNG-compliant independent coverage (own website obviously doesn't count), I have no opposition to moving this article to that title and rescoping/expanding. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks of significnt coverage. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Orthodox Cathedral, Pazhanji

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While we do have a function as WP:Gazetteer, we require the place to have inherent notability. My WP:BEFORE has not revealed any. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Religion, Geography, and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cathedrals are generally the subject of multiple reliable sources, but some of these sources may be unavailable online. On that principle, I would keep this article. This search on Google News also helps. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to cathedrals generally being notable, this one is 500 years old and covered in Onmanorama, the Deccan Chronicle and The Hindu. Mccapra (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets general notability as a cathedral. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per commenters above. Can be tagged for development. IMO probably all cathedrals are individually notable; at worst a cathedral might only be covered as a list-item in List of cathedrals (and then some coverage with sources should be provided at list-item, and the name should be a redirect, with suitable categories, to anchor at its list-item). Note, however, that List of cathedrals in India, which is organized by denomination and includes this one, has no details about any of its items. Many are blacklinks or redlinks. So merging info about this one cathedral to that list-article would appear to be undue coverage, so again it seems better to "Keep".--Doncram (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Cathedrals are generally notable without more. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cathedrals are inherently notable! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple reliable sources. MOSC cathedrals are inherently notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Bible Christian School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the school is closed, it existed during the internet era during which sourcing should be online. What I have found is limited to directories of christian schools (such as this and review sites. Nothing in depth.

I can find no evidence this school meets notability requirements. Joshua Henry was an alumnus, but that is a passing mention of the school and there are a handful of others, but notable alumni don't confer it upton the school. Star Mississippi 17:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Florida. Star Mississippi 17:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see a lot of coverage for its baseball team.[1][2][3][4][5] St Anselm (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We normally allow articles on High Schools to exist. Notability is not temporary. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that for public schools as coverage seems more likely to exist, but less so for K-12 private/religious schools. Notability isn't temporary, but in this case I can't find evidence it ever attained it. Star Mississippi 03:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, High schools have not had any presumption of notability for 4 years. A public or not for profit private school must meet meet GNG; a for profit school must meet NCORP like any other business. And although notability isn't temporary, a change in our standards for notability are generally treated retroactively. 174.212.227.246 (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a thorough BEFORE on this and PROD'ed the article. The baseball team story is tangential, and the only thing that really shows up. As far as notability not being temporary, that guideline states "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, an article may be proposed for deletion months or even years after its creation, or recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article." That is the case with secondary schools. They once got a free pass if they existed, but by consensus must now pass GNG or NCORP in order to be considered WP:N. This school doesn't have the WP:SIGCOV required.Jacona (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is no evidence of notability by Google search. Nonetheless, public schools should have notability unlike private school that must attain media coverage.Gartuwaso (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a private school.... Jacona (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No any evidence of notability. It's a private school and has no any independent source. Gingie11 (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Coverage of the school's baseball team is not transferable to the school itself as notability is not inherited. Futher local coverage of school sports is WP:ROUTINE coverage. There's nothing here that addresses the topic of the school itself "directly and in detail".4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn't about transferring notability at all. The baseball team is part of the school. If the baseball team is notable, then the school is notable. St Anselm (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. WP:ROUTINE specifically mentions sports matches as routine coverage. School athletics is covered in local press as a matter of course, and there is a reason why we have that specifically under that guideline. Further, that coverage does not address the topic of the school itself (it's history and notability as a school), which is supposed to be the primary subject of this article. One would assume the primary purpose of this school is to educate its students in academic subjects, not athletics, yet we have no SIGCOV of the institutions primary purpose or its history as an organization.4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions don't address the reasons for deletion, namely what the inclusion criteria are or how this list topic is notable. Sandstein 16:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian freedom fighters of India

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First line, and only non-list part of this page states that it is an 'incomplete essay'. Also violates WP:NOTLIST as nothing more then a list with no context showing why its encyclopedic. WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 06:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and India. Shellwood (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Christianity. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a useful list of mainly blue links for history researchers. The topic is very likely to pass WP:LISTN in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a legitimate and potentially useful list. I would prefer it to be Christian campaigners for Indian independence or something like that, because most of them did not fight. The opening words "incomplete essay" were presumably intended as a tag. However, this is a list. Almost all the articles have links to bio articles, which is where the references should be. It would be better this a slightly longer intro - another couple of sentences, linking it better to the independence movement. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost passing WP:LISTN and most of the people mentioned have links to wiki bio pages Proton Dental (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see no reason why intersection of person's religion and their activities in freedom struggle of India are relevant. The freedom struggle of India was not based on any religious. One may argue that formation of Pakistan was based on religious grounds and hence a religion+Pakistan formation subgroup may be notable. But that's not applicable with India. Until someone proves why this intersection is notable, this is just LISTCRUFT, no matter howmuchsoever blue linked entries it has. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I click on T. V. Thomas and find he was an atheist and also fought for communist rule, not freedom. Also some of these were just elected officials, they didn't doing any actual fighting, just writing letters and speaking out against things. Should be list of activists. Their religion didn't seem to have anything to do with any activities these people did. This list was mostly done by just one editor. Dream Focus 19:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Dharmadyaksha here. The premise of this list is flawed; there's no evidence this is treated as a notable topic; merely being filled with notable people doesn't satisfy LISTN, and to boot the actual organization appears critically flawed as "freedom fighters" doesn't properly describe many. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no clear inclusion criteria. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Springs Christian Schools

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Almost no coverage by independent reliable sources, and the only ref available is no longer verifiable (I'm getting Error 500). Tube·of·Light 12:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)~~ Current state of sourcing is accceptable, so now, I believe that the article should be kept. Tube·of·Light 01:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Colorado. Tube·of·Light 12:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't find secondary sources myself; can't redirect to school district because this is a private school. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 14:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: the school k-12 has maybe 862 students and has been around for some 50 years. links describing it include https://www.ecfa.org/MemberProfile.aspx?ID=6283 (finances) Rabey, Steve (2022-05-01). "Colorado Springs Christian Schools celebrates 50 years". Colorado Springs Gazette. Retrieved 2022-06-11.. It is part of Association of Christian Schools International --Erp (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG as with any American secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is only one news article about the school. If there is "enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG as with any American secondary school", please provide the links. Plus, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, so the "as with any American secondary school" doesn't make sense. Tube·of·Light 15:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:NEXIST sources only have to exist. They do not have to be in the article. They do not have to be online. My point is that it is virtually impossible that an American (or British or Canadian or Australian etc) secondary school will not have enough sources available to pass GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there are sources, those sources should be listed. We can't keep an article because "it is virtually impossible that an American (or British or Canadian or Australian etc) secondary school will not have enough sources available to pass GNG" unless someone actually finds the relevant articles. Tube·of·Light 01:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're basically just saying you don't like a guideline! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Absolutely incorrect, Necrothesp. I am saying that since you never listed any sources, you failed to prove that the article subject even satisfies WP:GNG or WP:NEXIST. Tube·of·Light 14:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per —Necrothesb. And in this case are the schools, plural, effectively a school district? In which case even more solid "Keep". -Doncram (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, unless someone provides enough sources, an article can not be kept. Please provide sources. Tube·of·Light 06:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to be a single school. BilledMammal (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:NSCHOOL, all schools must satisfy WP:NORG, WP:GNG, or both. Arguments that they are presumed notable must be discounted as per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. So far, it appears the only WP:GNG complaint source is this one from the Gazette, and even it only just meets the requirement, as most of the coverage is not independent of the subject - has anyone been able to find more? BilledMammal (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not just one school As point of fact, it is a school district or like that. Colorado Springs Christian Schools (per http://www.cscslions.org/ ):
- has a "Colorado Springs Campus" / K-12 / 4855 Mallow Road Colorado Springs, CO 80907 719.599.3553
- has a "Woodland Park Campus / K-8 / 1003 Tamarac Parkway
- CSCS was named a National Blue Ribbon School (whatever that is) in 2010
- CSCS is a 501c3

Also, per Google maps, Colorado Springs Christian Schools includes

- a middle school at 4845 Mallow Rd.
- a Colorado Springs Christian High School at 4825 Mallow Rd.

This is a school district, IMO, and as that plus being a charitable nonprofit with reporting requirements there will exist substantial coverage, in addition to high school sports reporting level stuff. Performing wp:BEFORE is a requirement or recommendation before nominating articles for deletion; the nominator mentions searching and implies that reliable sources do exist ("almost no coverage by independent reliable sources' -> they did find some coverage). --Doncram (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sufficiently notable (and I've searched). Probably merge into the Colorado Springs, Colorado article section on education. Perhaps expand the current list item there with a short description, e.g., "A PreK–12th grade Christian school started in 1972 and with an enrollment of 744 in 2016". The same should probably happen for most of the other schools on the private list (with a couple of exceptions like Colorado School for the Deaf and Blind which is notable in my quick opinion and Hilltop Baptist School which no longer exists and never notable so should be dropped from the list). --Erp (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is now ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilltop Baptist School, where discussion has developed that Hilltop Baptist School is in fact notable. Scandal there, enrollment drop, and closure might relate to enrollment increases at Colorado Springs Christian Schools. Also in general CHCS enrollment increases documented in some sources (I forget which ive seen) deserve coverage in this article. --Doncram (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonprofit financial info: Continuing, it is a school district with revenues of $8,716,551 and assets of $10,949,710, as easily available from the main source on nonprofit financials, www.guidestar.org, which is free to all for use (requires opening a free account). Form 990s are available immediately online for 2019, 2018, 2017 filings (about 2018, 2017, 2016 fiscal years). From the 2019 one, the required brief description of the organization’s mission is:
COLORADO SPRINGS CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS (CSCS) IS A COLORADO NONPROFIT CORPORATION WHICH EXISTS TO PROVIDE HIGH QUALITY EDUCATION FROM A BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE FOR LIFELONG SERVICE CSCS WAS FOUNDED IN 1971 OUT OF THE NEED FOR BIBLECENTERED EDUCATION FOR THE CHILDREN OF CHRISTIAN FAMILIES CSCS SEEKS TO BE AN EXTENSION OF THE HOME AND THE CHURCH, PROVIDING A MEASURE OF CONSISTENCY REGARDING INPUT INTO THE LIFE OF THE CHILD CSCS SERVES THE HOME AND THE CHURCH IN THE REALM OF CHRISTIAN CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS IN ACADEMIC, PHYSICAL, SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL AREAS THE SCHOOLS HAVE PROGRAMS FOR KINDERGARTEN THROUGH SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS.
Typical sports type reporting found easily by Google searching "Colorado Springs Christiann High School" in "news" category:
- "Elle Stevens brings home 3200-meter win for Colorado Springs Christian, adds to Lion legacy", by Luke Zahlmann, May 22, 2022 in the Pulitzer prize-winning Colorado Springs Gazette
- Mentions in Colorado State Track Meet Day 3 Results in Denver Post
- etc. --Doncram (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feature type article: Colorado Springs Christian Schools celebrates 50 years, by Steve Rabey, May 1, 2022 in Colorado Springs Gazette. Among other things it mentions affiliation with Association of Christian Schools International. It seems possible to me that superintendent Roland DeRenzo (currently a redlink) is a wikipedia-notable person. It states:
CSCS has seen more than 10,000 students enter its doors and 3,228 graduate. The school now has 1,150 students — including some in Woodland Park and Westcliffe — 130 employees and an $8 million budget. Tuition costs $6,500 to $9,700 a year. / The 2021 class graduated 71 students, who won more than $5 million in academic scholarships to attend some of the country’s best secular and Christian colleges. Many grads have attended the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, a mile to the east, and some now work there.
routine news / Covid news type articles: "Christian schools note growing enrollment as parents seek alternatives to public schools", by Debbie Kelley, Oct 25, 2021, in Pikes Peak Courier (currently a redlink) (Article appears to be a reprint from Colorado Springs Gazette, and/or Pikes Peak Courier is another newspaper in Gazette's ownership/portfolio.) Includes:
A difference in pandemic practices created what Roland DeRenzo, superintendent of Colorado Springs Christian Schools, calls “a wave of enthusiasm for recruitment season.” / Parents noticed that the pandemic’s typical seesawing between live classroom instruction and remote learning didn’t seem to be happening at faith-based schools. / “Parents were so hungry and excited and had an intensity in getting students back in seats,” he said. / Like many private religious schools, Colorado Springs Christian Schools stayed open after mandatory closures lifted last spring, while still following public health practices, such as installing air filtration systems and stepping up cleaning.

There will be other news type stuff.

I'll stop here. I rather expect there is plenty more, that's just in first 2 pages of Google results. Perhaps the nominator and participants so far did not search on "Colorado Springs Christian High School". --Doncram (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Perhaps the nominator and participants so far did not search on "Colorado Springs Christian High School": No, that's not the case for me. I went through the first five pages and found only one news article. I guess Google is using my past search history and choosing not to show search results from news sites. Anyways, going by the current state of the article, I'm certain that it meets WP:GNG. Tube·of·Light 01:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Doncram: it was a difficult to read through the above given some list formatting issues; however, "typical sports reporting" doesn't make a school notable especially when the divisions it plays in are quite low down. Nonprofit status certainly doesn't on its own. A quote by the superintendent in a local newspaper article doesn't make a school notable. There is one feature type article which had already been mentioned. Note I couldn't even find the school in the US News & World Report listings thought that is probably the school's decision not to be listed (it also wouldn't make it notable but would be some independent info). --Erp (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
some more stuff:
- Fox21 story on 50th year celebration (different than Gazette article)
- Colorado Springs Christian Schools-Woodland Park to add eighth-grade, become a middle school, by NORMA ENGELBERG, Apr 28, 2021
- ~~Colorado Springs District 11 votes to sell historic school building (actually i can't verify this is about CSCS because I hit my 4-articles-free limit on Gazette.~~ --Doncram (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last one is not about the school. The public school district sold the building to a charter school, Mountain Song Community School. Announcing the addition of an 8th grade is hardly noteworthy beyond the local community. The Fox21 story is all of 5 sentences long and a picture which shows a sparse crowd at the celebration. Erp (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Erp, thank you for bearing with formatting issues in my postings here, which have been mitigated somewhat by subsequent edits. Also thanks for identifying non-relevance if one article i cited, since struck-through by me. It takes a village, or something like that . --Doncram (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough coverage in reliable sources identified in this discussion for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view. Also noting the nominator has withdrawn, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sports articles does not significantly cover the district (it doesn't even seem to cover the schools significantly), and the Fox one is very little coverage. The Colorado District 11 article is just about District 11, not Colorado Springs Christian Schools. I do not see how nonprofit financial info helps with notability: this sort fo information is required, and the most unnotable organization that requires public records will have public records (also, according to WP:ORG, financial reports are primary sources, not secondary). Looking at the sources for Hilltop Baptist School that got deleted, a lot of them suffered link rot, but of the ones that didn't, Colorado Springs Christian Schools is not mentioned once: just because the school may be notable does not automatically make the overseeing organization notable.

The articles that significantly cover Colorado Springs Christian Schools so far mentioned is: Celebrating 50 years article (Colorado Springs Gazette), Growing enrollment as parents seek alternatives article (Pikes Peak Courier), and Adding 8th grade to school article (Pikes Peak Courier). Note that all of these articles come from the same organization, The Gazette. Per WP:GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." So it seems to me that so far the only sources that contribute to proving notability are considered one source in the context of WP:GNG, so with the information given so far, this Wikipedia article should be removed. It also seems to fail WP:ORG for similar reasons (see WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:ORGCRITE). TheGEICOgecko (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Present article flawed but notability is established via multiple sources and the discounting of the Courier and Gazette sources seems to be an errant application of the ORG regulations. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to Colorado Springs, Colorado, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Oppose merger, support keeping the article now that notability is proven (I am the nominator) The article subject is too minor to be mentioned in the Colorado Springs article. Tube·of·Light 05:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hilltop Baptist School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost no coverage by independent reliable sources, and no independent refs on Google. Tube·of·Light 12:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Colorado. Tube·of·Light 12:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Name is too common to help find sources. It's been closed for over 10 yrs and no further sources are likely to turn up, no heritage register listings that I can see either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like this article got blanked pretty hard, there was some information that got removed that turned the article into mostly a stub, but I'm not sure if that info was exactly proper for the article. ~XyNq^t_c 15:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -This diff appears to be the content removal mentioned above. I'm not going to restore it, because as it written it appears to violate BLP. But the sources indicate that the scandal content removed was directly causal to the school's closing, changing the nature of the scandal from sensational news we shouldn't cover to history, which we definitely should cover. With the sourcing for the removed content, this easily meets GNG. 174.212.228.43 (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments of User:XyNq and i.p. editor. Tag for rewriting. Should be re-expanded sensitively. This is significant history; record of what happens to schools upon a scandal as here, fairly or not, should be remembered. Also the scandal and then closure may have affected enrollments at other schools such as Colorado Springs Christian Schools (also up for deletion, and i !voted Keep) where it might be mentioned. --Doncram (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very clear that this article meets WP:GNG, just considering sources deleted from the article. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I carefully reinserted a very high-level picture of the sexual abuse case to the article. There are tons of sources on that, especially if you include the name of the perpetrator in the search. I have found very little about the school that is unrelated to the sexual abuse case. Jacona (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia#Early beginnings.. No prejudice against re-expanding to an article if additional sources can be found. MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August Höglund

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. WP:BEFORE searches for independent, reliable sources have yielded virtually nothing except for one name check in a directory listing. The two primary sources in the article and found in searches do not serve to establish notability, and I am unable to access the almanac listing in the article. Even if the almanac listing provides significant coverage, it is still only one source, and nothing else appears to exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Sweden and Utah. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a Master's thesis here[6] that mentions him briefly, but which also refers us to a number of other sources regarding the early history of the LDS Church in Russia: "See Kahlile B. Mehr, “Johan and Alma Lindolf: Early Saints in Russia,” Ensign (July 1981): 23-24; Kahlile B. Mehr, “The 1903 Dedication of Russia for Missionary Work,” Journal of Mormon History 13 (1986-87): 110-123; Kahlile B. Mehr, Mormon Missionaries Enter Eastern Europe (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2002); Gary Browning, Russia and the Restored Gospel (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1997), and E. A. Eliason and Gary Browning, “Crypto-Mormons or Pseudo-Mormons? Latter-day Saints and Russia’s Indigenous New Religious Movements,” Western Folklore 61, no. 2 (2002): 173-207." There's also a Desert News article from 1991 here[7]. Also here in a book from Brigham Young University Press[8].Jahaza (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That Journal of Mormon History article is here[9].Jahaza (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Below is a partial source review. If possible, Jahaza, could you provide links for the unlinked sources above? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

The thesis contains one very short footnote sentence about the subject, stating, "August J. Hoglund to Anthon H. Lund, 18 June 1895, Millennial Star 57 (27 June 1895): 414.". This is not significant coverage, and theses and dissertations are questionable as being usable on Wikipedia to qualify notability.

That is incorrect. Page 49 of the thesis discusses August Hoglund and states that the topic of Hoglund's trip to St. Petersburg has been covered elsewhere and provides the footnote I reproduced above. The thesis was later published as an article in The Journal of Mormon History[10]Jahaza (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Deseret News article contains two short sentences about he subject, stating, "In 1895, Elder August Joel Hoglund, a native of Sweden, was sent to St. Petersburg, Russia, where he arrived June 9. He met with the Johan M. Lindelof family and baptized Johan and his wife, Alma, on June 11 in the river Neva." This is not significant coverage, and is essentially routine reporting.

This isn't routine reporting per WP:ROUTINE, which is things like announcements, weddings, community meetings, store openings, etc. it's the opposite actually, it's an article written in 1991 about about a historical event that shows interest in the topic persisting long after its occurrence.--Jahaza (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon Missionaries Enter Eastern Europe only provides snippet views, but it doesn't seem that there is significant coverage there. Snippet views will often highlight several name mentions when they are present, but there are only two there.
Ensign (LDS magazine) is a primary source that is not usable to establish notability. It was an an official periodical of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I cannot access the Journal of Mormon History article. Does this contain significant coverage, or is this also only a passing mention?

Browning, Russia and the Restored Gospel is available here[11] with a page on Hoglund's trip to Russia and his observations there.

To be frank, this is time-wasting quibbling. There's verifiable history here and really no debate about that. Your original deletion argument rested largely on the fact that you couldn't access the source cited in the article and so it could be discounted, not a good argument and on the fact that you couldn't find any other sources beyond one name check in a directory, but it was very easy to turn up articles, papers, and books discussing the man. If you don't think he's notable enough, just redirect it to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia, where he's already mentioned. There's really no reason to not make it a redirect as he's consistently mentioned in LDS materials and materials about the LDS Church in Russia (see, e.g. this Vice interview[12]), making his name a plausible redirect to the article where he's mentioned.--Jahaza (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out if you google "2007 Deseret Morning News Church Almanac" the Internet Archive scan is high up in the results, with one sentence on Hoglund.[13]. Obviously that's not enough to make an article out of, but I think it's signifigant for his notability that he shows up in a source like that in the compressed history of the LDS Church in that country, like an early missionary or proto-martyr from the Catholic Church would.--Jahaza (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Coverage of the subject that is viewable is very scant; there is no significant coverage at all among viewable sources. I also seriously doubt that Mormon Missionaries Enter Eastern Europe contains more than just a couple of sentences or so. Just because a subject is verifiable does not mean that they are automatically notable per Wikipedia's standards. However, I am fine with a redirect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete as has been discussed. I took a look at the Journal of Mormon History reference, and similar to the other sources this individual doesn't get more than a one or two sentence mention. Could definitely be used in the main Russia article, but not notable enough for its own. Rollidan (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main focus of the article is that he was the first person to convert a Russian resident, but his trip took a mere 10 days. Nothing else is said about his work in Sweden. Looks NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I approached this with every intention to dispute suggestions for deletion since AH was "the first" in something but after I went through the sources proffered above by Jahaza I saw they're mostly about, as Jahaza put it, "the early history of the LDS Church in Russia" and not about our subject. There is no defensible independent notability. Let's Redirect this to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia and Merge there any text that can be saved. -The Gnome (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted. Important person as the first to bring the Mormon faith to Russia. 2600:100C:B225:154F:B91F:FF21:8F3F:FBF4 (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with the sources as mentioned above. Oaktree b (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a merger tag down here at the bottom of the AFD but I don't see a wellspring of support for merging this article. But I'll give it another week to consider this option, knowing that this AFD can be closed earlier.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The merger tag there is a record of the fact that there has been a suggestion of merging it, and therefore, as per WP:MERGE, it is proper that the putative target be notified, which has happened. If merger is not the likely outcome of the AfD discussion, that need not delay closure. But maybe when it is closed, the closer would remover the notification from that page. Thanks, Kevin McE (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete with redirect and improvement. Any possible notoriety I could find is already stated in the referenced section, but doesn't appear significant enough for a separate page. Redirect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia#Early beginnings. Maybe wording and info can be improved in this section.--Dmm1169 (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No evidence that there are sources which address the subject "directly and in detail".4meter4 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:1E and a not very notable 1E at that, based on the limited coverage. There's little sourcing to show that what this missionary did was important or earth-shattering enough to warrant an entire article. The entirety of this is already in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia#Early beginnings anyway. An easy delete vote, but I could be talked into making this a redirect to that section. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

No articles proposed for deletion at this time

Categories for discussion

Christian religious leaders: further follow-up required, see Category talk:Religious leaders#Clergy categories

Miscellaneous

Wikipedia:No bigots, see Wikipedia talk:No bigots#Bigot is an uncivil word, this essay should be deleted.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 ==Christianity==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa of Jesus, Child}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Southern_Episcopal_Church_(2nd_nomination)}}