Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:47, 23 April 2024

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waters of Mormon

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

Article doesn't meet wp:gng What little reference it does have is a passing mention used to describe a plot point. No secondary sources cover this topic in depth. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Before nominating the article for deletion, Big Money Threepwood deleted a list of sources that an earlier edit summary explained "can be used to expand the page". Also, I added the shortened note citations to "Thomas (2016)" that exist on the article and appear to have forgotten to actually add the book to the sources list: John Christopher Thomas, A Pentecostal Reads the Book of Mormon: A Literary and Theological Introduction (CPT Press, 2016). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There are plenty of sources available via GScholar. Central and Adams (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Book of Mormon places, I am not seeing the sort of significant coverage in independent sources which would indicate stand-alone notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike several other since-deleted articles on that amounted to trivia meaningfully sourceable only to the Book of Mormon, the Waters of Mormon's role as the setting of the Book of Mormon's expression of what Latter-day Saints consider their baptismal covenant has made it the subject of textual study and cultural reception of which there is coverage (Stott's identification of an intertext with Joseph Bellamy's preaching; Bolton connecting it to Anabaptism; Whitley's coverage of its appearance in poetry). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and close nomination -- This was nominated by a now-blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Bogus nomination. X (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2024 (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. ✗plicit 00:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Gill (priest)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Or, failing that, redirect to Archdeacon of Cloyne. As with other similar articles by the creator contributor, there is nothing to indicate that the subject has any notability independent of the role/job that they held. The sources in the article (including this directory style entry alongside HUNDREDS (thousands?) of other clerical people) do not constitute material biographical coverage. Nor can I find any. The sources barely support (as the creator, frankly, should have done) a sentence or two about the subject WP:WITHIN the article on the role that they held. Other than for the "completionist" reasons that seems to have driven most of the creator's submissions, there is nothing to support or justify a short sub-stub/stand-alone biographical entry. Guliolopez (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to validate notability of this individual. Unlike bishops, archdeacons are not inherently notable by virtue of their office. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Twe directory listings is not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2024 (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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ștefan Buchiu

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for initiating this discussion regarding the notability of Prof. Ștefan Buchiu and for your concerns about the types of references cited. It is indeed true that a portion of the references come from sources related to the Romanian Orthodox Church, such as the Basilica News Agency and Lumina newspaper. This is largely because Fr. Prof. Buchiu's contributions and activities are within the ecclesiastical and theological community. As a prominent figure in this domain, I believe coverage by these specialized sources is both expected and appropriate, reflecting his standing and influence in the field.

In response to the need for additional independent sources, I have updated the article to include references to three significant books that discuss Prof. Buchiu’s biography and contributions to Orthodox theology. These books are reputable academic publications, providing a critical and scholarly view of his work and impact. Notably, one of these books is a festschrift in his honor, published on his 70th birthday, which includes contributions from fellow academics, underscoring his notability in the theological community. Such festschrifts are recognized in academia as significant honors that reflect a scholar's impact in their field.

Moreover, the event of his 70th birthday itself, which was marked by significant academic and ecclesiastical gatherings, further supports his notability under the criteria outlined in WP:PROF. This event and the publication of the festschrift are indicative of his standing within the theological community enhancing the article's credibility and alignment with Wikipedia's notability standards for academics.

Given these points, and considering the detailed criteria under WP:PROF, Prof. Buchiu’s scholarly output and his role in advancing Orthodox theology both domestically and internationally are documented and significant. His career enriches academic and theological discourse, making the retention of this article valuable for Wikipedia's coverage of notable academic figures in theology. KoreSoteria (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for those additional sources. The entry in Păcurariu, for example, is a good indication of notability. Let’s see if anyone else wishes to add something to the discussion. — Biruitorul ^Talk 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not familiar with the expected academic output in this field, but 21 citations since 2008 and an h-index of 3 on GS seem very low to me. There could be other metrics involved, such as the quality of the journals or the publishing houses where those publications appeared, but I cannot evaluate those. Turgidson (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have included additional authoritative references to Prof. Ștefan Buchiu's Wikipedia page to further substantiate his notability. The article now contains references from the Library of Congress Authorities and the Bibliothèque nationale de France, which are highly reputable sources that affirm Prof. Buchiu's academic standing. These sources provide a strong independent confirmation of his scholarly work and are indicative of his recognition in academic libraries globally. I believe these additions significantly strengthen the case for notability per WP:PROF. KoreSoteria (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to satisfy both WP:PROF and WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as having a dedicated Festschrift is one of the criteria for passing WP:NPROF see specific criteria notes 1c, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2024 (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. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. PamD 07:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to St Helen's Church, Lincoln or just redirect. There is mergeable content. The congregation are not notable for an article, per nom., but the joint use of this and another church by a single congregation is worth mention on the merge target page - it is the current use of this church. It is a small merge, but a merge nonetheless. The merge discussion has the page creator arguing for the notability of Holy Cross. I don't think those arguments pass muster, but they are not a reason to keep this page which is specifically about the joint congregation. A Holy Cross church article could be created although my view is that it would not meet notability requirements and should not be attempted without sufficient reliable secondary sourcing. I didn't see where the merge header was removed, but it clearly lacked visibility, so the discussion here is appropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy The article on St Helen's already includes "The church is joined with the nearby Holy Cross Church as the "Congregation of Holy Cross and St Helen's".", with a link to the parish website. Is that enough? The merge header was removed earlier today with the uninformative edit summary "Slight tweaks". PamD 09:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I see it now. Yes, on the basis the information is already there, I have unbolded my merge and bolded redirect instead in this edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree the two churches are linked and can be covered in St Helen's Church, Lincoln. There isn't a church called Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln, so that title as a redirect may be of limited use. For readers to find content on Holy Cross it would need a redirect page, titled "Holy Cross Church, Boultham" or such like. The main discussion point regarding a merge is whether there should be an infobox for each church, just for one of the churches or a combined one. Found brief local news reports on Holy Cross's opening in 1940, which can be used for additional factual content. None of the references currently in the article count towards notability and so far I haven't found feature length coverage. Rupples (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that one article is sufficient to cover both churches however it is accomplished. Esemgee (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Holy Cross church needs to be covered at all, except perhaps in a list of churches in Lincoln. It appears to have no claim to notability. PamD 13:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Cross is mentioned in Boultham and Wikiproject UKGEOG content guidelines for settlements say to note churches within their locality WP:UKTOWNS#Religious sites — it doesn't state the church has to be notable for inclusion. Rupples (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Churches mentioned in settlement articles don't have to have their own article. Maybe this article should be renamed and redirected to St Helen's Church. Esemgee (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Take it you mean 'redirect' rather than 'article' as the closing word in the first sentence?~~ Yes, agree with a retitle, and redirect to St Helen's but I've seen an admin state not to do this before the AfD closes. Suppose we'd recommend redirect under the current title then rename the redirect page. Rupples (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC). Strike, maybe misread. Rupples (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Notability not established for this church. The title of this article "Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln" is inaccurate and misleading. It leads one to think it's the name of a single church building. The website for the church is Boulton Parish and the home page begins The Congregation at Holy Cross and St. Helen's. We already have an article St Helen's Church, Lincoln where reliably sourced detail on Holy Cross can be added. It's simpler to delete this, add a section to St Helen's about Holy Cross and create a redirect page, (suggest Holy Cross, Boultham) than redirect this article's rather nonsensical title. Rupples (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples There's already a redirect, with categories, at Holy Cross Church, Lincoln, and that is listed in the dab page at Holy Cross Church#United Kingdom. OK, have now created Holy Cross Church, Boultham as a second redirect. Both currently pointing to this article, Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln, but if this is deleted or redirected they should both target St Helen's Church, Lincoln where the church gets a mention. PamD 16:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one name, one place, one church, one body. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to St Helen's Church, Lincoln, which bizarrely isn't even linked in the article. If there is anything worth merging, go ahead and save that bit, suitably cited, but apart from St Helen's there doesn't seem to be anything here worthy of note. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St Helen's Church, Lincoln. Changing from delete to redirect as a new, more aptly named redirect has been created. Doesn't require a formal merge as there's so little to merge that any reliably sourced content can be added to the redirect target separately, should anyone feel inclined. A separate heading is warranted for Holy Cross in the St Helen's article as reading through it's starting to get confusing which church the text relates to. There is further relevant material that can be added about Holy Cross, though insufficient coverage to establish notability. In any case, as the churches are linked it is better for context the two are combined in the article for the church whose notability is proven. Rupples (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rupples and Chiswick Chap. Mertbiol (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2024 (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 List of television stations in North Carolina#LPTV stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WHFL-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in North Carolina#LPTV stations: It isn't quite the type of all-national programming service so many LPTVs are, but I'm not convinced this likely-run-of-the-mill religious station has much significant coverage either. Likely a remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 28 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 13:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Brandt

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, Florida, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Contains poorly referenced sources. Subject may be notable but does not show notability. Mevoelo (talk)
Weak delete: Nothing can be verified. He could possibly be notable if he really has all those TV appearances. If someone can find citations, I would change my vote.Yolandagonzales (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2024 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Decision

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Delete per Gechichte. I also cannot find anything sufficint to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:NBAND Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find reliable sources on the subject. Yolandagonzales (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 03:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waycross, Indiana

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

Another case of "populated place" not meaning "settlement", because Waycross isn't the location of the camp and conference center: it is the facility itself. Waycross was opened by the diocese in 1957, and it pops up in a previously blank spot on the topos shortly thereafter. I'm marking this for deletion rather than some other outcome for three reasons: first, all I'm getting for it besides its website is directory listings, so notability is an issue anyway; second, there's nothing much in the article that would be useful in making an article anyway; and third, there should be no redirect from this name because it would allow the misconception that this is a settlement to persist. The article on the diocese doesn't mention the facility, but it should be called by its proper names (it's often just called Waycross) in linking to a section there. Mangoe (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Geography, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Leaning delete, though there actually is some coverage of the Waycross Episcopal Camp and Conference Center: in the Brown County Democrat in 1999 and again in "Making a difference through cookies" in 2017. The cookies article explicitly refers to Waycross as the name of the children's camp and conference center, not as the location ("Brown County"). Cielquiparle (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the above, and per what I can see from county maps and histories, the site doesn't appear to be anything more than a camp and conference center. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Waycross Episcopal Camp and Conference Center. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is factually incorrect as this is a camp, not a community, so WP:GNG applies. I'm not sure it's met from the sources above. I suggest delete "without prejudice" so that an article about the camp (not any supposed "community") could be re-created if more sources are found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone wants to establish notability for the local church camp (questionable) that can be done separately; repurposing a false article about a supposed community is not necessary. Reywas92^Talk 14:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If enough other sources are found, one could make a separate article for Waycross Episcopal Camp and Conference Center, but it seems misleading to keep an article called "Waycross, Indiana" and presenting it as a "community". Incidentally, a search for "Waycross" in Indiana newspapers over time mostly returns articles about Waycross, Georgia. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with everyone, and add that if Cielquiparle and ╠╣uw won't even vote to keep it, it's time for it to go.James.folsom (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2024 (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 merge‎ to List of Book of Mormon places. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jershon

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Latter Day Saints. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 05:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Book of Mormon places. Doesn't seem like there's enough to make a notable stand-alone page from. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to List of Book of Mormon places. Available secondary coverage of Jershon is better suited to summarization in Anti-Nephi-Lehies, for which Jershon is the setting. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:27, 28 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 04:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rameumptom

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

Per wp:notdict and wp:gng - this is a definition of a term used in the book of mormon. There are no apparent independent reliable sources that cover tge topic in depth. This seems like an unlikely search term for the book of mormon, so I don't believe a redirect would be appropriate Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, which guides that there are times when it's better to cover a topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic. For readers, Rameumptom would be more usefully described in the wider contexts of the plot/setting/theology of the Book of Mormon; there is not an amount of coverage that would justify a separate article. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Hydrangeans' comments. Trevdna (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2024 (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 speedy keep‎. The nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet and there are no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secret combination (Latter Day Saints)

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

Per wp:notdict and wp:gng, this is a definition of an in universe phrase using only in universe sources. No secondary sources seem to have spent time writing anything in depth about the use of the phrase secret combination in Mormon culture Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC) the nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The statement that No secondary sources seem to have spent time writing anything in depth about the use of the phrase secret combination is not quite accurate. Looking through Google Scholar reveals the following:
- Dan Vogel, "Mormonism's 'Anti-Masonick Bible'", John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 9 (1989): 17–30), with discussion of how it was a euphemism for Freemasonry.
- Seth R. Payne, "Satan's Plan: The Book of Mormon, Glenn Beck and Modern Conspiracy", paper presented at a 2014 meeting of the American Academy of Religion held in Calgary, Canada and released on SSRN: mentions how the phrase was an anti-Masonic euphemism in the nineteenth century and became a term popular among Latter-day Saint conspiracy theorists in the twenty-first century.
- Patrick Q. Mason, "Ezra Taft Benson and Modern (Book of) Mormon Conservatism", in Out of Obscurity: Mormonism Since 1845, eds. Patrick Q. Mason and John G. Turner (Oxford University Press, 2016), 63–80, about how LDS Church president and Dwight D. Eisenhower cabinet member Ezra Taft Benson used the phrase "secret combination" and applied it to his right-wing understanding of U. S. politics.
- Robert A. Goldberg, "From New Deal to New Right", in Thunder from the Right: Ezra Taft Benson in Mormonism and Politics, ed. Matthew L. Harris (University of Illinois Press, 2019), 68–96, also about Benson's use of the term "secret combination" in his politics.

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, we could reduce the entire article to "'secret combination' is an LDS-specific shibboleth that means 'alliance of evildoers'". As the sources cited above make clear, the term is not generally used or meaningful to anyone outside the LDS movement. But even within the movement it means different things at different times (e.g. the distinctive and personal interpretation by Ezra Taft Benson described in the Mason source above vs. the anti-Freemasonry version described in the Vogel source above). I can see how from an LDS perspective they could be collected based on their common origin into one article, but as a reader and contributor to a general encyclopedia I think that a standalone article probably doesn't help our readers as much as directing them to more useful, contextual information about the few disparate instances where the term's invocation (not just origin) is worth discussing.
So, is there any interest in replacing this unbalanced article with two or three entries in the parent secret combination DAB pointing interested readers to those existing articles, something like "a term for groups of evildoers in the Book of Ether", "a term historically used to distinguish between Mormonism and Freemasonry", "a term used by politician Ezra Taft Benson to describe political conspiracies", that sort of thing? Those articles should already be talking about "secret combinations", and if they aren't, well, that's interesting too, but it could be rectified in those articles using some of the sources provided above, I would think. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Reformed Church (North America)

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

Micro-denomination of six churches. All sources in article are primary sources direct to the subject's own webpage. WP:BEFORE search is tricky because of the common name (similarly named churches in Cuba, Africa, etc.) but turns up nothing to validate notability under WP:NORG Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm away from my copy of the Handbook of Denominations for a bit, but if someone else has access, indexing and description in there is generally sufficient to establish notability. Otherwise, I'd lean towards deletion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not listed in the 11th edition. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per research by Dclemens1971 determining that they were not listed in the most comprehensive compilation on the subject. Since the denomination is not listed there, GNG is the best standard to apply and the subject fails on that count. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Desertarun (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2024 (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!} 23:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Reformed Churches

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

Nominating following contested PROD. Micro-denomination of (perhaps) six congregations; PROD contestor said poor sourcing is not a reason to delete, but no existing sources are valid for establishing notability, and WP:BEFORE searches provide no additional evidence of notability under WP:NORG.

Review of existing sources:

Link - Dead link; archived link here fails verification; it has not been updated since 2004 and confirms no other information about this church.
Link - Self-published source citing other self-published sources; not updated since 2014.
Link - Self-published source in discussion forum is not reliable.
Link - Self-published source making a single passing reference to the subject that may verify existence but not notability.
Link - A single passing reference that may verify existence but not notability.
Link - Self-published source in discussion forum is not reliable.
, 10, 11. Link, Link, Link - Webpages of member congregations and thus primary sources
Link - Denomination's webpage and thus a primary source
Link - Presbytery meeting minutes; primary source.

I cannot identify any other independent, secondary, reliable sources that verify the notability of this denomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, United States of America, New York, and Ohio. Skynxnex (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the excellent source analysis by the nom and the overall lack of sources available to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. The souce analysis supports the rationale. So many non RS with little to none GNG. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel Christian School (Jefferson Davis Parish, Louisiana)

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

Small defunct school. Zero secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Louisiana. AusLondonder (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not notable at all. WizardGamer775 (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Fails GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination. Fails GNG and NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jefferson Davis Parish, Louisiana as it seems to be NN according to current rules. I tried looking for sourcing on Newspapers.com but had no such luck. I'll check Newspaperarchive.com but not sure if I will succeed WhisperToMe (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure a redirect is necessary given it is an unlikely search term with the disambiguation. AusLondonder (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, it seems the only way to salvage or undelete the article would be to find coverage in Jennings Daily News which is non-routine. Indeed, newspapers don't have all of their archives publicly online. Unfortunately, the other newspaper services I see don't seem to carry this paper. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To establish notability, we need to see coverage in multiple reliable sources. Multiple articles in the same newspaper is considered one source. What would the second source be? ~Kvng (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. I wasn't able to find anything showing notability online, and I don't think it's a viable search term that would warrant a redirect. - Aoidh (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No claim to notability and no evidence of notability . Only two sources and searches (at least in Europe) yield nothing better. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:54, 22 April 2024 (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. BusterD (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Presbytery, Bible Presbyterian Church

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 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]

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. given improvements made to the article since its nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pentecostal Mission

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, Sri Lanka, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep am finding some reliable sources coverage such as this, I haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep have added references and is a century old church founded in 1923 feel the resources will be offline. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I see where you are coming from. This is probably a case where the sources do exist, but may be difficult to find initially. HenryMP02 (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 27 April 2024 (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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mirdad

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

There are no reviews of his work and no significant coverage of him. He does not meet GNG in any way. Ynsfial (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Spirituality, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G11: From reading the article, it feels promotional to me. As the nom has failed to find any significant coverage, this is likely eligible for speedy deletion as promotion . QwertyForest (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2024 (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 merge‎ to Montasola. Consensus is against retention as a separate article Star Mississippi 02:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Maria Murella, Montasola

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. JuniperChill (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately, Italian heritage listing is not great, but in most other western countries a medieval or Baroque church would undoubtedly be heritage listed and would therefore pass WP:GEOFEAT so I think this is certainly notable. Yes, of course non-English sources are acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here? Although this Wikipedia is likely the strictest out of all, we somehow allow special and very old buildings here even though there is only one source, and that is only in Italian. So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable? This article may not be meet GNG and it is a very obscure place. This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine. Ie i dont see it as notable. This can also apply to Houghton Mill where it is a National Trust site, but only has a source and very few people know it (I just looked up random NT sites that are not very popular) so should be gone. JuniperChill (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable? Yes, of course they are, per WP:GEOFEAT. Houghton Mill is a Grade II*-listed building. I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here? Yup. This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine. Ie i dont see it as notable. That's not really relevant to Wikipedia notability. Others do. This article could certainly do with more sourcing, but buildings of this age are definitely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Romanesque church probably built on the ruins of a temple, Roman age or earlier. It means a 2000 years or more old building. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Montasola. With deep respect for the experienced editors that have previously contributed to this discussion, I can't find myself agreeing with the Keep !votes above:

WP:NBUILDING specifically states that Buildings ... may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability (my emphasis). The Keep !votes above recognise that Santa Maria Murella might have historic/architectural importance, but ignore the lack of coverage, which is a case exactly anticipated by the relevant notability guideline here. Nobody has presented any "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources", and the best I could find was an entry from an office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy, which I'm not sure whether we can regard as "third-party".
Even if notability is met, WP:NOPAGE suggests that if covering a topic as part of a parent article would improve readability, we need not have a standalone article. It seems that the existing sources have little to say that can sustain a lengthy article on Santa Maria Murella: the church and its history can be adequately summarised in a few paragraphs at Montasola. Seeing as Santa Maria Murella, Montasola claims that the church...was located at the site of the Roman city of Laurum, which seems to be its most important feature according to previous !votes, the church is probably easier understood in the context of Montasola's history. In my experience, this is not uncommon for non-notable churches (and let's be honest: many places have churches that date back several centuries, though the current buildings might not be the original ones).
As an alternative to deletion, a merge allows the preservation of the page history should significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources emerge per WP:NBUILDING.

I note that Rococo1700 created articles for two other churches in the town (Santi Pietro e Tommaso, Montasola, San Michele Arcangelo, Montasola), which have nothing to support their notability except an entry on the local council's website. On their userpage, they write that their aim for new entries is to try to have at least two "independent" sources, so I suspect this collection of articles results from inexperienced editing, and may also need to be reviewed. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, yes, I think articles containing only non-English-language sources are perfectly fine (cf. WP:NONENG). Here's one I made earlier. The non-availability of English-language sources suggests that the topic might not be the most interesting for English-language readers, but it doesn't detract from the topic's notability. Cf. WP:INTERESTING: Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals and our readers and potential readers include everyone on the planet. Any subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Source: Italian, gives details on the church's history.[1] Rupples (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source is from a office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy. The homepage explicitly makes clear that the project is a census of Italian churches, creat[ing] a national database of Italian churches. Your mileage may vary, but to me, this doesn't constitute an independent source, and consequently it doesn't contribute to significant coverage or notability. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Montasola I agree with IgnatiusofLondon that as a separate article this will at best be a stub. The only sources I can find are mentions in sources that are essentially lists of churches in Italy. I also think that information seekers are better served to encounter what little data there is in the context of the Montasola article. Note that the Montasola article itself is only a few sentences, not surprising since it is a small town of ~420 population. The Italian WP article has quite a bit of history of the place but none of it is referenced so we can't even make use of that, and the church is not mentioned in that article. Lamona (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested to Montasola. There is too little to support four or more stubs about a small commune off the tourist track. Also, it would fail my long-standing standards for churches, having only one factor for notability, its age. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2024 (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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Anyone is free to create a redirect if they see it fit. ✗plicit 14:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWBK-LP

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a more complicated one than a clearly-non-notable LPTV—which, to be clear, this very much is—should be. Obviously there is no independent notability here; in and of itself the only known programming on this analog license was TBN, and its post-TBN history seems to have mostly been on paper and off the air. But along the way it did spawn a digital companion channel that survives to this day. But WWBK-LD ended up becoming an equally-non-notable HC2/Innovate station and a separate article for that was redirected at AfD. There is zero reason to retain even one article on this (these should have been merged years ago, if only to have had one less AfD on this subject), and I'm leaning towards delete, but this arguably could be redirected to the list of stations owned by Innovate Corp. as an {{R avoided double redirect|WWBK-LD}}. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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. ✗plicit 11:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K21JQ-D

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. If it is a rebroadcaster, merge to the parent station. Otherwise, merge to the owner. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to merge to. The owner doesn't even have an article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. I don't see any redirect or merge target. Let'srun (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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) 08:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While this is mentioned at list of television stations in Washington (state)#Translators, it is as as relay of K36EW-D, which does not have (and never has had) an article. I suppose the whole Blue Mountain Television operation is a run-of-the-mill religious station that does have some locally/regionally-produced material and is not entirely national programming, but lacks the significant coverage we require. A remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 27 April 2024 (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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KRLB-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough SIGCOV in Tri-Cities paper. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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) 06:58, 27 April 2024 (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 no consensus‎. No consensus to delete after a month of discussions and relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed fundamentalism

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep the term is in use in the scholarly literature. The page may well need work but I'm not sure it is bad enough for WP:TNT JMWt (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it really is a thing - particularly with the Bible Presbyterian Church and the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster - but the article isn't very good. St Anselm (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there independent reliable sources linking these to a "Reformed fundamentalist" movement? -- JFHutson (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It looks like this might close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Categories for discussion

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

Miscellaneous

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ==Christianity==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waters of Mormon}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arthur_Gill_(priest)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ștefan_Buchiu}}