Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity
![]() | Points of interest related to Christianity on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
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.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg/32px-Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg.png)
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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Communion of Western Orthodox Churches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only independent source given, Thöle, only mentions the CWOC in passing. I can't find any source that actually covers their activities. There's no evidence that this communion is more than a loose agreement of three small like-minded denominations. Leefeniaures audiendi audiat 21:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Leefeniaures audiendi audiat 21:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Europe, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Article has been PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)- Delete While autocephalic churches in communion with a significant church are almost always notable national branches of a church located outside that church's home country, this does not appear to be the situation for the "communion" among the three churches that are the subject of this article.[1] I would consider changing my vote if independent sources were found or the significant concepts and French sources were explained and verified. Ben Azura (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)- Delete. Found one academic source that provides WP:SIGCOV, but not any other qualifying sources toward WP:GNG or WP:NORG. If anyone finds another one, ping me and I'll update my !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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) Let'srun (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- KTYJ-LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Idaho. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep There is a ton of coverage in two newspapers (the Idaho edition of The Spokesman-Review and the Coeur d'Alene Press) for the 1994–1997 period. The station had a very bumpy early history that included an illegal transfer of control, Seattle Mariners baseball games, and a bankruptcy filing, even though it drops off the radar hard after becoming KTYJ. Reasonable WP:BEFORE in Newspapers.com would have avoided this outcome. And if Newspapers.com lacks the city you need, given that we are dealing with LPTVs, ask me and there may be coverage in NewsBank. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Per Sammi Brie's rewrite of the article with sources. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 18:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been improved with content referenced to multiple reliable sources that together show a pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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! 04:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- KHBA-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)- Delete this article should have never been created to begin with. Catfurball (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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! 03:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- List of Adventist schools in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Prod reason states "This list is made up of mostly schools that are not notable and also there are no references it has been like this from day one that it was created". As I am conducting a procedural AfD, I am neutral on the matter. --Lenticel (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Religion, and Philippines. Lenticel (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Rename to List of Adventist universities in the Philippines. As far as sourcing goes, I wouldn't know what is available in reliability, but I figured reducing the list to be just the colleges and universities would be more suitable to WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete the majority of Seventh-day Adventist schools in the Philippines are not notable and never will be. And we do not need a separate list for Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities in the Philippines, that is why we have List of Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities. Catfurball (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Before a rename is considered, you have to put forth a good, policy-based argument on why this article should be Kept. A rename can be discussed after an AFD if this article is Kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - this is where a category is much more useful than a long list of which most schools are not notable. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Movieguide Epiphany Prize for Most Inspiring Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Weird partisan award that reviews movies "from a christian perspective" with no coverage aside from that which it generates itself. BrigadierG (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable. I came up with no coverage beyond the cursory.- Weak keep per RunningTiger123 and a few column inches in the LA Times in 1996. JSFarman (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Awards. SL93 (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – the awards are covered in industry publications such as Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline. Based on practices for other awards, once the overall awards are established as notable and have run for a few years, individual category lists such as this are acceptable (especially since the listed films mostly have their own articles, fulfilling a navigational purpose as well). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - As others have noted, there's some press coverage, if not much. But even if there weren't, notability isn't proportional to coverage. The moral implications of the culture is a huge issue, and this award is the biggest thing I know of that deals with that. It's true that it's partisan, and that's a reason to provide a counterpoint, but it isn't a reason to suppress information about it. That would be far more partisan than the award is. - Burner89751654 (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as a valid split from the main article and has reliable sources coverage such as Variety, Deadline, and Hollywood Reporter, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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 02:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Prabodhan Vidyalaya School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Zero coverage in independent sources,fails WP:NSCHOOLRatnahastin (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Maharashtra. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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 23:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Our Lady of Maulawin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is limited to unreliable sources. While source #2 presents itself as an academic source, it appears to be self-published, and tellingly includes no bibliography. I was unable to find coverage on Google Scholar, Google Books, or the internet searching in English, Spanish and Filipino. signed, Rosguill talk 17:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Philippines. signed, Rosguill talk 17:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete no good hits on GNews and GBooks. GNews Archives just have a wedding and a funeral announcement that were held in the said Parish. --Lenticel (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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 23:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Our Lady of Peace and Good Voyage of Noveleta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:GNG. The citation to The Inquirer is decent, although academic sources should be preferred for religion topics. Otherwise, I can find no coverage of this subject outside the publications of the Philippine Independent Church itself, which are not independent of the subject, having searched in English, Spanish and Filipino on Google Scholar, Books, and the internet, having also searched for plausible colloquialisations of the name, such as "Mahal na Birhen ng Noveleta", "Nanay Paz de Noveleta", etc. signed, Rosguill talk 16:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Philippines. signed, Rosguill talk 16:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete confirming nom's findings. My search didn't turn up reliable sources as well. --Lenticel (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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 Dennis Villarojo. Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- The Canonical Installation of Dennis Villarojo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTNEWS. I see nothing here to suggest that this cermony is in any way notable, although I suppose there might be a case for merging to Dennis Villarojo is there is actually aything of any real importance in this article. Which I doubt.TheLongTone (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Christianity, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge while not ROUTINE coverage, this is clearly a NOPAGE situation, as the topic can be covered (and perhaps should be done so more briefly) at Dennis Villarojo. Note that since this appears verifiable content, I disagree with the nom's suggestion that there might be nothing worth merging. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Dennis Villarojo. I think this isn't enough for a standalone article and the target could still be expanded. --Lenticel (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge selectively to Dennis Villarojo, not suitable for a standalone article imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
commentJust how much is there worth merging?TheLongTone (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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! 02:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Samson Oladeji Akande (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not have WP:SIRS. // Timothy :: talk 01:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Abysmal sourcing and hagiographic. Does nothing to demonstrate notability as Wikipedia defines it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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 05:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Voice of Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Radio station fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No effort in article to demonstrate notability. All sources in article are to self-published/primary sources. No significant coverage in independent, secondary sources, just a handful of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Christianity, and Uganda. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Our Lady of Lourdes Church, Visuvasampatti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence that this local church passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All sources cited are affiliated with the church or diocese and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to support notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Infant Jesus Church, Selliampatti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence that this local church passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All sources cited are affiliated with the church or diocese and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to support notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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 Dorothy Durgin. However I have not deleted it as it isn't clear why the content must go entirely. If I've misread, please ping me. Star Mississippi 14:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hart and Shepard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NCORP. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, Christianity, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as per the Harvard magazine article and Union Leader newspaper article already in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - While Harvard magazine and a single article in the Union Leader may be reliable for use in verifying facts, just those two citations together are insufficient for establishing notability. The two publications would appear to not have the circulation/audience necessary to demonstrate notability beyond a small region or special interest niche. The citations do not show that Hart and Shepard is anything close to a household name. CapnPhantasm (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - anything from that period that is even being discussed today in magazine articles is surely noteworthy. An additional source: the "famous Dorothy cloak" made by Hart and Shepard is held by the Shaker Museum, and is discussed in Beverly Gordon's 1990 research paper "Victorian Fancy Goods: Another Reappraisal of Shaker Material Culture". A different take is provided by Antiques and the Arts ("Smalls Bring Big Prices At Willis Henry Shaker Sale" of 4 December 2007) which notes the high prices fetched by the cloaks. I am certain there are numerous other such sources that credibly establish the importance of this brand, back in its heyday. And "Once notable, always notable". Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- None of those article provide in-depth information about the *company* (which is the topic we're looking at here), they all discuss the cloak. HighKing++ 13:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Dorothy Durgin. An article on the "Dorothy Cloak" or the "Shaker Cloak" would appear to meet GNG as a standalone topic, but a topic on this organization/company fails GNG/WP:NCORP and therefore a Delete is in order. A search on Google Books for "Dorothy Cloak" provides lots of suitable references. HighKing++ 09:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect and delete, per HighKing. Fails NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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! 03:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are listings, name mentions, routine mill news, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth // Timothy :: talk 02:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
SourcesAll universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
- Chan, Margaret (1993-10-18). "Making studies enjoyable". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
The article notes: "Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School, Po Lam Estate, Tseung Kwan O. ... This year, the school implemented an orientation programme for its 11 new teaching staff. The programme introduces the new teachers to the aims of the school; explains teaching procedures; and allows them to share their opinions and experiences after a few weeks in the new job. ... This year, the school has also introduced a new Form 1 subject called Computer Literacy. ... Since the school was founded in 1987, the quality of students has improved greatly. It accepted mostly Band 4 students in 1987, but now most students are in Band 1. ... The Christian school was founded in 1987. It is not affiliated to any particular church. ... Students are taught in Chinese and English, both sharing equal prominence. ... The school has 26 classrooms and laboratories for Integrated Science, Chemistry, Physics and Biology."
- Ruby (2022-07-26). "西貢區中學Band1學校集結|演藝界新星準備發光發亮" [Sai Kung District Secondary School Band 1 schools gather|Rising stars in the entertainment industry are ready to shine]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group . Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
The article notes: "迦密主恩中學 迦密主恩中學是西貢區將軍澳新市鎮內第一個中學校舍,亦是第一間資助英文中學。所以它在早期已經是區內的知名band 1 英中,是區內採用英語授課歷史最悠久的學校!實力一定不會差。交流計劃及海外遊學團是他們基本的活動,固此他們的學生很早已經接觸外國文化,英文水平更是優秀。 與其他區的名校一樣,迦密主恩中學一樣著重STEM教育(科學、技術、工程及數學),學校就有STEM課程包括生物科技及3D打印技術,更有VR虛擬實景供同學發揮創意,說不定香港的將來科學家就是出自迦密主恩中學!"
From Google Translate: "Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary Schooll is the first secondary school building in the new town of Tseung Kwan O, Sai Kung District, and the first aided English secondary school. Therefore, it was already a well-known band 1 English-Chinese school in the district in the early days, and it is the school with the longest history of teaching in English in the district! The strength will definitely not be bad. Exchange programs and overseas study tours are their basic activities. Therefore, their students have been exposed to foreign cultures very early, and their English proficiency is even better. Like other prestigious schools in the district, Carmel Lord's Grace Middle School also focuses on STEM education (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). The school has STEM courses including biotechnology and 3D printing technology, and also has VR virtual reality for students to express their creativity. Maybe Hong Kong’s future scientists will come from Carmel Lord’s Grace School!"
- "西貢將軍澳13校縮班" [Sai Kung Tseung Kwan O School 13 reduces classes]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2011-01-29. p. A13.
The article notes: "繼北區中學自願縮班紓緩殺校壓力後,另一個「重災區」西貢及將軍澳區,13間中學昨日亦達成協議,各自縮減一班,包括名英中學迦密主恩中學"
From Google Translate: "After the North District middle schools voluntarily reduced their classes to relieve the pressure of school killings, 13 middle schools in Sai Kung and Tseung Kwan O districts, another "hardest-hit area", also reached an agreement yesterday to reduce the number of classes by one class each, including the main school of Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School."
The article notes: "迦密主恩中學創校24年,校舍建於八十年代,校長林瑞美指校舍只有25個課室,98年該校成為區內唯一英中,最高峯時多達31班,課室長期不敷應用 ,於是在頂樓加建一層,但新建樓層每逢雨天經常漏水,要用膠袋和喉管勉強支撐,曾試過有膠袋變成“水彈”墮下,影響正在考試的學生。 去年起該校為應付新高中學制,更要藉用旁邊小學課室上課。"
From Google Translate: "Carmel Lord's Grace Secondary School was founded 24 years ago. The school building was built in the 1980s. Principal Lin Ruimei pointed out that the school building only has 25 classrooms. In 1998, the school became the only English-medium school in the district. At its peak, there were 31 classes. The classrooms were not fully utilized for a long time, so an additional floor was built on the top floor, but the newly built floor often leaked on rainy days, and had to be barely supported by plastic bags and pipes. In one case, a plastic bag turned into a "water bomb" and fell, affecting students who were taking exams. Since last year, in order to cope with the new high school academic structure, the school has to borrow classrooms from the neighboring primary school for classes."
- Yun, Nga-ting 袁雅婷 (2023-02-01). "香港學校|迦密主恩中學 全人優質基督教教育 培養品學兼優生" [Hong Kong School|Carmel Lord's Grace Secondary School, holistic high-quality Christian education, cultivating students with excellent moral character and academic performance]. am730 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
The article notes: "學校亦著重STEM的發展。他說,學校運用三層架構發展同學相關的興趣及能力,第一層是全校參與模式,所有同學在初中到高中階段,課程都加入STEM元素。學生一般到大學才有機會接觸生物科技,但該校已設有生物科技實驗室,讓同學在中二開始對該科目有所理解,例如有關培植細菌、找出較強殺菌清潔劑的實驗等。高中就有各項STEM活動,例如STEM Day,所有學生都會參與其中。"
From Google Translate: "The school also focuses on the development of STEM. He said that the school uses a three-tier structure to develop students' relevant interests and abilities. The first level is a whole-school participation model. All students from junior high school to senior high school have STEM elements added to the curriculum. Students generally have the opportunity to come into contact with biotechnology only when they go to university, but the school already has a biotechnology laboratory, allowing students to begin to understand the subject in Secondary 2, such as experiments on cultivating bacteria and finding stronger antiseptic cleaners. There are various STEM activities in high schools, such as STEM Day, in which all students participate."
- "將軍澳迦密主恩中學擧行三屆畢業禮,温漢璋勉勵必須有信心以將軍澳為家鄉發光芒" [Tseung Kwan O's Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School held its third graduation ceremony. Wan Hon-cheung encouraged the audience to have the confidence to shine in Tseung Kwan O as their hometown.]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1991-06-15. p. 6. Retrieved 2024-05-15 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
- Chan, Margaret (1993-10-18). "Making studies enjoyable". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Cunard and NORG. gidonb (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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. I see a consensus that the newly located sources satisfy notability standards for schools. A possible rename can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hong Kong Chinese Christian Union Logos Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are listings, name mentions, routine mill news, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth // Timothy :: talk 02:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
SourcesAll universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
- Lin, Zhong 林钟; Deng, Shaobing 邓少冰 (2014). "走进香港真道书院小学" [Visit Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy]. 七彩语文(习作) [Colourful Language (Exercises)] (in Chinese). No. 10. East China Normal University. ISSN 1673-4998. Retrieved 2024-05-15 – via CQVIP .
Colourful Language (Exercises) is a magazine published by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University. According to this description from Google Translate, "Colourful Language (Exercises) was officially launched in January 2015, with academic guidance provided by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University. The magazine is closely linked to the reform of basic education curriculum and strives to provide suitable resources and platforms for middle school Chinese teachers to meet the needs of teachers for daily teaching and improvement of professional qualities."
The abstract notes: "本期的"大眼睛看世界",小编将和大家一起走进香港一所名校——香港华人基督教联会真道书院。真道书院位于香港调景岭湾畔,学校分小学和中学部,与其他学校不同,真道书院学生没有统一的校服。小学部学生在中文课上使用的是内地出版的小学语文课本,他们觉得教材文字优美,内容包含了古今中外的文化特色,和浓厚的道德教育元素,很符合小学语文教育的需要。"
From Google Translate: "In this issue of "Seeing the World with Big Eyes", the editor will go with you to a famous school in Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Union Logos Academy is located on the shores of Tiu Keng Ling Bay in Hong Kong. The school is divided into primary and secondary schools. Unlike other schools, students at Union Logos Academy do not have uniforms. Students in the primary school use primary school Chinese textbooks published in the Mainland in their Chinese classes. They feel that the textbooks are beautifully written, contain cultural characteristics of ancient and modern times, Chinese and foreign cultures, and have strong moral education elements, which are in line with the needs of primary school Chinese education. ... In the first two years of elementary school, Union Logos Academy expects students to lay a solid foundation of knowledge and learn self-care, self-study and self-reflection skills. The school focuses on constructing a school-based curriculum and uses some Chinese and art textbooks from the Mainland."
- Lok, Irene (2015-05-11). "將軍澳一條龍直資 香港華人基督教聯會真道書院 中小學" [Tseung Kwan O One-stop Direct Subsidy Scheme. Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Primary and Secondary Schools]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group . Archived from the original on 2024-05-24. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
Lok, Irene (2015-05-11). "將軍澳一條龍直資 香港華人基督教聯會真道書院 中小學" [Tseung Kwan O One-stop Direct Subsidy Scheme. Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Primary and Secondary Schools]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group . Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.The article notes: "2002年創校的真道年資較其他直資學校淺,被定為新派直資學校,卻是全港唯一採用「十一年一貫」課程模式的學校,分兩年基礎階段、五年拓展階段及四年通達階段,以十一年完成小學及中學課程。 ... 在小學首兩年基礎階段,真道期望學生打穩知識基礎,學好自理、自學及自省能力。學校着力建構校本課程,採用部分內地中文及美術科教材"
From Google Translate: "Founded in 2002, Union Logos Academy has a younger school years than other DSS schools and is designated as a new DSS school. However, it is the only school in Hong Kong that adopts the "11-year consistent" curriculum model, which is divided into two years of basic stage and five years of expansion stage. and the four-year mastery stage, which takes eleven years to complete the primary and secondary school courses. ... In the first two years of elementary school, Union Logos Academy expects students to lay a solid foundation of knowledge and learn self-care, self-study and self-reflection skills. The school focuses on constructing school-based curriculum and adopts some mainland Chinese and art textbooks."
- A, Yin 阿言 (2024-02-01). "專訪|香港華人基督教聯會真道書院 多元體驗式學習培育未來領袖" [Exclusive Interview|Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy's diversified experiential learning cultivates future leaders] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
The article notes: "學校著重學生全方位發展,學生從小學便培育體、美特質,提供多項興趣班予學生選擇,如跳繩、跆拳道、琵琶及烏克麗麗等。另外,為培養學生閱讀習慣,自小學階段設有閱讀時間,同學在操場集合一同閱讀,從小學階段養成自己探索知識的習慣。中學則設有 DEAR Time(Drop Everything And Read),讓學生暫時放下功課及其他事務,專心閱讀。學校更會舉辦不同活動,如閱讀馬拉松、圖書日、書展等讓同學接觸不同類型的書籍,鼓勵學生閱讀。"
From Google Translate: "The school focuses on the all-round development of students. Students develop physical and aesthetic qualities from elementary school, and provides students with a variety of interest classes to choose from, such as rope skipping, taekwondo, pipa and ukulele. In addition, in order to cultivate students' reading habits, reading time is set up from the primary school level. Students gather in the playground to read together, and develop the habit of exploring knowledge by themselves from the primary school level. Middle schools have DEAR Time (Drop Everything And Read), which allows students to temporarily put aside their homework and other matters and concentrate on reading. The school also organizes different activities, such as reading marathons, book days, book fairs, etc., to expose students to different types of books and encourage students to read."
- Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2021-06-02). "【直資中學】一條龍11年完成小學中學課程 真道書院雙軌制曾出產IB狀元" [[Direct Subsidy Scheme Secondary School] One-stop primary school and middle school courses completed in 11 years. Union Logos Academy’s dual-track system has produced IB top scorers]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
The article notes: "位於將軍澳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院屬中小學直資一條龍學校,也是全港唯一以11年完成小學及中學課程的學校。真道書院既提供中學文憑試課程(DSE),同時開辦國際文憑課程(IB),學生在公開試成績優異,過去亦曾誕生IB狀元。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O is a one-stop school under direct subsidy for primary and secondary schools. It is also the only school in Hong Kong that completes primary and secondary school courses in 11 years. Union Logos Academy not only provides the Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (DSE) course, but also offers the International Baccalaureate Diploma (IB) course. Students have achieved excellent results in public examinations, and IB top scorers have also been born in the past."
- Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2023-10-10). "直私面試丨直資真道書院2023年小一面試題目 老師話+傳豆袋考小朋友反應" [Direct Private Interview丨Direct Subscription Union Logos Academy Primary One Interview Questions 2023 Teacher’s Words + Bean Bag Test Children's Responses]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-24. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2023-10-10). "直私面試丨直資真道書院2023年小一面試題目 老師話+傳豆袋考小朋友反應" [Direct Private Interview丨Direct Subscription Union Logos Academy Primary One Interview Questions 2023 Teacher’s Words + Bean Bag Test Children's Responses]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.The article notes: "位於將軍澳區直資學校的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院,即提供本地文憑試(DSE)課程,同時開辦國際文憑(IB)課程,多年來深受家長歡迎。真道書院小一面試有兩輪,第一輪是小朋友自行面試,若成功通過會進入第二輪面試,家長也會獲邀出席,TOPick邀請了為女兒報考7間直私小學的港媽梁太,拆解真道書院小一面試第一階段考核的内容。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, located in the direct subsidy school in Tseung Kwan O District, provides local Diploma Examination (DSE) courses and also offers International Baccalaureate (IB) courses. It has been popular among parents for many years. There are two rounds of primary one interviews at Union Logos Academy. The first round is for children to interview on their own. If they successfully pass, they will enter the second round of interviews. Parents will also be invited to attend. TOPick invited Mrs. Leung, a mother from Hong Kong who applied for her daughter to seven direct private primary schools to dismante the contents of the first stage of the primary school interview at Union Logos Academy."
- Lin, Zhong 林钟; Deng, Shaobing 邓少冰 (2014). "走进香港真道书院小学" [Visit Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy]. 七彩语文(习作) [Colourful Language (Exercises)] (in Chinese). No. 10. East China Normal University. ISSN 1673-4998. Retrieved 2024-05-15 – via CQVIP .
- The article should be renamed to Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy (add the word "Churches" after "Christian" and before "Union") to match the name on the website. Cunard (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reply, promo, interviews, all obviously based on the same info/source, nothing above show WP:SIRS or notability, they just show marketing at work. Nothing wrong with promotion, but it doesn't equal notability. // Timothy :: talk 12:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I did not find any evidence of the sources being "based on the same info/source" since they discuss different aspects of the school. WP:SIRS is part of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, a non-profit educational institution like Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy needs to meet only Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which this school does. Cunard (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment These sources aren't doing what they're purported to be. Source 1 appears to be the equivalent of a WP:TRADES publication. Sources 2, 4 and 5 are brief listings of multiple school options, no significant coverage. (Moreover, 4 and 5 are on the Hong Kong Economic Times' "TOPick" subsite, which appears to be a advertorial Daily Mail-style infotainment site, not a reliable source.) Source 3 is described as an "interview," which is a primary source and thus not eligible to validate notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- The first source, a magazine published by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University, is not equivalent to a WP:TRADES publication. It is an academic magazine, not a trade magazine. For the second source, I linked to the wrong article because when scrolling to the bottom of the article, the website changes the URL to the next article. I've fixed the link. The incorrect link did not mention the school. The updated link is a full article about the school.
The third source contains sufficient non-interview content to amount to significant coverage. The fourth source discusses other schools but provides significant coverage of this school. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
For the fifth source, I linked to the wrong article for the same reason discussed above. I've fixed the link. The fifth article is about the school's interview process and is significant coverage.
I consider TOPick to be a reliable source. According to this information from a Telum panel discussion with the Hong Kong Economic Times Group about TOPick:
The publication has journalists, editors, and an independent editorial team. It is not an "advertorial" site. It aims to inform its readers about parenting and education topics. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Editorial team
Around 30 journalists and editors, each contributing five stories daily.
An independent editorial and video team oversees each sector.
Editorial focus
80 per cent on parenting and health, 20 per cent on entertainment, celebrity and lifestyle.
Parenting: general parenting news and education information through a section called 「Band 1 學堂」, which features information on kindergarten, primary and secondary school, elite education and overseas study.
- The first source, a magazine published by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University, is not equivalent to a WP:TRADES publication. It is an academic magazine, not a trade magazine. For the second source, I linked to the wrong article because when scrolling to the bottom of the article, the website changes the URL to the next article. I've fixed the link. The incorrect link did not mention the school. The updated link is a full article about the school.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. See my comments on the sources above; I do not believe they are sufficiently reliable nor offer enough significant coverage to meet GNG or NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- All five sources provide significant coverage. For two of the sources, I linked to the wrong pages owing to how the website changes the URL to the next article when scrolling to the bottom of the current article. I've fixed the links. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I reviewed the new links and stand by my assessment. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- All five sources provide significant coverage. For two of the sources, I linked to the wrong pages owing to how the website changes the URL to the next article when scrolling to the bottom of the current article. I've fixed the links. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as per Dclemens1971 assessment. I don't believe the additional sources found help with notability. LibStar (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I am surprised that reliable sources from a Chinese academic journal and Hong Kong newspapers are considered insufficient to establish notability. Sources likely these previously have been sufficient to establish notability for schools, which must meet only Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and not Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which "establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article".
An alternative to deletion is to merge to Tiu Keng Leng#Education, where this school is located. School articles should be merged, not deleted, when there is a suitable alternative to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- So are you now !voting for merge not keep? LibStar (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- My first choice is a keep. My second choice is a merge if consensus is against a standalone article. The five sources I've listed were found through a Google search. Since editors consider them insufficient to establish notability, I will do a more exhaustive search for print sources. These are sources that cannot be found in a Google search. It takes a lot more time to do this exhaustive search, so I usually do the Google search approach first.
The first source I found casts an unflattering light on the school as it says that 20% of the teachers resigned owing to being overworked. Here is the source:
- "真道書院9教師呈辭" [9 teachers from Union Logos Academy resign]. The Sun (in Chinese). 2005-08-04. p. A12.
The article notes: "在電視節目《殘酷一叮》三連霸的「莫生」莫凱謙現正就讀的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院,今年將有五分一教師共九人離職,有教師指離職原因是因為工作辛苦。"
From Google Translate: "One-fifth of the teachers from Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, where Mok Kai-him, who won three consecutive championships in the TV program "Cruel One", is currently studying, will resign this year. Some teachers said that the reason for resigning was because of the hard work."
The article notes: "○二年創校的真道書院是一間直資一條龍學校,中小學共用約五十名教師,當中有近兩成共九名教師,在今學年完結後離任。"
From Google Translate: "Founded in 2002, Union Logos Academy is a direct subsidy one-stop school with a total of about 50 teachers in primary and secondary schools. Among them, nearly 20%, a total of nine teachers, resigned after the end of this school year."
- "真道書院9教師呈辭" [9 teachers from Union Logos Academy resign]. The Sun (in Chinese). 2005-08-04. p. A12.
- My first choice is a keep. My second choice is a merge if consensus is against a standalone article. The five sources I've listed were found through a Google search. Since editors consider them insufficient to establish notability, I will do a more exhaustive search for print sources. These are sources that cannot be found in a Google search. It takes a lot more time to do this exhaustive search, so I usually do the Google search approach first.
- So are you now !voting for merge not keep? LibStar (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I explained above why I didn't search for these sources earlier. I have found numerous additional sources about the school. I omitted the numerous positive articles and have focused on the negative articles since there were concerns earlier about the sources being "marketing" or "promotion". I think these sources should be sufficient to establish notability. If they are not, I could continue my search for sources since these are only some of the hundreds of results about the school that I found. Here are the additional sources.
- The Sun article about 20% of the school's teachers resigning for being overworked 2005
- Articles about the school's primary school students being disallowed in 2008 from participating in a competition because of how its academic system is different from other schools':
Sources
- Chen, Qiuxia 陳秋霞 (2008-02-25). "真道小六生列學生參賽 學體會評級方式惹非議" [Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy Primary 6 students participate in the competition, and the learning experience grading method has attracted criticism]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). p. A9.
The article notes: "西貢區的香港華人基督教聯會真道學院第六年辦學,一直採用「兩年基礎階段+五年拓展階段+四年通達階段」的十一年中小學一條龍教學制度,不同於現行「六年小學+五年中學”十一年中小學教育。若依年齡劃分,現時真道二百二十一位就讀「拓階四」的學生是傳統的「小六生」,不過該階段學生接受政府中學資助,○七/○八年中學概覽內也劃分他們為「中一生」。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Council Zhendao College in Sai Kung District is in its sixth year of operation. It has been using an eleven-year one-stop teaching system for primary and secondary schools of "two years of basic stage + five years of expansion stage + four years of mastery stage", which is different from the current "six-year" "Primary school + five years of secondary school" eleven years of primary and secondary education. If divided by age, the current 221 students of Zhendao who are studying in "Top Level 4" are traditional "Primary 6 students". However, students at this stage receive government secondary school subsidies and are also classified in the 2007/08 Secondary School Profile. They are "middle life"."
- "真道「小學生」被禁參賽風波" [Controversy over Logos Academy's "primary school students" being banned from participating in the competition]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2008-02-26. p. F1.
The article notes: "以十一年中小學學制為賣點的將軍澳香港華人基督教聯會真道書院,想不到其與別不同的學制,引起一場小學生停賽風波。第六年在該校就讀的拓展階段四年級(DS4)學生,尷尬地處於中小學的中間點,學界體育聯會西貢區小學分會認為,DS4學生既接受中學資助,應被界定為中學生,故此禁止參加本學年剩餘的小學際與區際比賽。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O, which sells its eleven-year primary and secondary education system, unexpectedly caused a controversy among primary school students due to its different academic system. The expansion stage fourth grade (DS4) students who study in the school for the sixth year are awkwardly in the middle point between primary and secondary schools. The Sai Kung District Primary School Branch of the School Sports Federation believes that DS4 students should be defined as secondary school students since they receive secondary school subsidies. They are prohibited from participating in inter-elementary and inter-district competitions for the remainder of the school year."
- "直資校參加學界賽腰斬" [DSS schools lose half of their participation in school competition]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2008-02-25. p. A20.
The article notes: "本港學制日益多元化,不再局限於傳統中小學之分,惟學界體育比賽制度僵化,繼續以中小學劃分,令到一間直資名校的近百名十一歲學生,因其所讀的課程等同於中學課程,被拒與傳統學制同樣十一歲的小六學生比賽,學生參賽資格即時被腰斬,學子無辜,慘成官僚制度下,政治鬥爭的犧牲品。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong’s academic system is increasingly diversified and is no longer limited to traditional primary and secondary schools. However, the school sports competition system is rigid and continues to be divided into primary and secondary schools. This has caused nearly a hundred 11-year-old students from a prestigious direct subsidy school to be divided. The courses he studied were equivalent to middle school courses, and he was refused to compete with the 11-year-old Primary 6 students in the traditional school system. The student's qualifications were immediately cut in half. The innocent student became a victim of political struggles under the bureaucracy."
- Chen, Qiuxia 陳秋霞 (2008-02-25). "真道小六生列學生參賽 學體會評級方式惹非議" [Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy Primary 6 students participate in the competition, and the learning experience grading method has attracted criticism]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). p. A9.
- The school was harshly criticised in 2010 by Hong Kong's Audit Commission for administrative misconduct regarding property purchases and tuition fees. This led to hearings by the Legislative Council Accounts Committee. It led to at least one hundred articles covering the fallout which spanned at least several months. Here are a few of those sources:
Sources
- "德信售校章利潤1.5倍 教局六方面跟進監察直資校" [Dexin's profit from selling school seals is 1.5 times. Education Bureau follows up on six aspects to monitor DSS schools]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-21. p. A7.
The article notes: "立法會帳目委員會昨天就直資學校的監管舉行最後一場聆訊,重點討論三所直資學校的違規行徑,包括運用七千萬元投資的德望學校、用一千萬元購買三個該物業的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院,"
From Google Translate: "The Legislative Council Accounts Committee held the last hearing on the supervision of DSS schools yesterday, focusing on the irregularities of three DSS schools, including the Good Hope School, which used HK$70 million of investment, the Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which used HK$10 million to purchase three properties ..."
The article notes: "議員何秀蘭質疑,真道書院有否將盈餘儲備作投資或購買物業,減少學校現金流,以用作申請加學費理由。教育局首席助理秘書長李煜輝表示,該校○八╱○九及○九╱一○兩學年均有加費,但局方發現於○九年八月三十一日的現金流有七千多萬元,連同物業和基金股票等,已超過局方規定的儲備上限,由於盈餘過高,局方已拒絕其一○╱一一學年加學費的申請。局方稱,核准學校加費不單是考慮學校現金流,亦有其他因素。局長孫明揚補充,校方加費須得到家長同意,校方亦要遞交發展計劃,由局方釐定學校是否可以存有大量盈餘。"
From Google Translate: "Councillor Cyd Ho questioned whether Logos Academy had used its surplus reserves for investment or property purchases to reduce the school’s cash flow, which could be used as a reason to apply for a tuition increase. Li Yuhui, Chief Assistant Secretary of the Education Bureau, said that the school had increased fees in both the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 academic years, but the bureau found that the cash flow on August 31, 2009 was more than 70 million yuan, together with properties and fund stocks, which exceeded the reserve limit stipulated by the bureau. Due to the excessive surplus, the bureau has rejected its application for a tuition increase in the 2010/2011 academic year. The bureau said that approving a school to increase fees is not only based on the school's cash flow, but also on other factors. Secretary Sun Mingyang added that the school must obtain the consent of parents to increase fees, and the school must also submit a development plan, and the bureau will determine whether the school can have a large surplus."
- "真道放寬學費減免收入限制" [Logos Academy relaxes income limit for tuition exemption]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-20. p. A12.
The article notes: "上月審計報告重點審查的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院,被揭發擁有1900 萬盈餘但學費減免條件嚴苛,又以個人名義購置單位作教師宿舍。真道學院近日已作多方改善,昨日3 名校董連同校長,與400 名家長會面,提出5項措施回應,包括放寬申請家庭的學費減免收入限制,鼓勵清貧學生報讀。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was the focus of last month’s audit report, was revealed to have a surplus of HK$19 million but had strict conditions for tuition exemptions and purchased units in individual names as teachers’ dormitories. Logos Academy has made many improvements in recent days. Yesterday, three school directors and the principal met with 400 parents and proposed five measures in response, including relaxing the income limit for tuition exemptions for applying families and encouraging poor students to apply."
- "真道書院開家長會 跟進審計報告指控" [Logos Academy held a parent meeting to follow up on the accusations in the audit report]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2010-12-20. p. A26.
The article notes: "遭審計報告羅列多宗「罪行」的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院,昨天下午舉行家長會。該校多名校董出席,與約400名家長會面。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was hit with numerous “crimes” in the audit report, held a parents’ meeting yesterday afternoon. Many school directors attended and met with about 400 parents."
- "真道書院聘會計師核賬" [Logos Academy hires accountants to audit accounts]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2010-12-20. p. A14.
The article notes: "於直資審計風暴中屢被批評多項行政失當的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院,昨日再召開家長會,安排校董會向家長講解事件最新進展。校監陸幸泉提出多項措施「補鑊」,包括聘請羅兵咸會計師重新檢視學校帳目、釐定學校採購政策競價投標準則等,以個人名義購買的一間村屋及居屋亦將作物業轉名事宜。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which has been repeatedly criticised for multiple administrative misconducts during the direct subsidy audit storm, held another parent meeting yesterday and arranged for the school board to explain the latest developments of the incident to parents. School Superintendent Luk Xingquan proposed a number of measures to "make up for the wok", including hiring accountants Luo Bingham to re-examine the school's accounts, determining the school's procurement policy and bidding criteria, etc."
- "真道近2000萬助學金未批出 教局反對用作添設備 必要時接管學校" [Logos Academy's nearly 20 million scholarships have not been approved. The Education Bureau objects to using them to add equipment and take over the school if necessary.]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-01. p. A4.
The article notes: "於直資學校「審計風暴」中被重點查帳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院,已被教育局書面警告須及時糾正違規買物業及助學金儲備使用率低等問題。... 接近政府的消息稱,教育局認為學費減免是為有經濟需要的學生而設,不認同用作添置設備;局方會留意校方最終如何落實改善違規工作,若成效不彰,便會由教育局常任秘書長派員進駐學校管理委員會接手校政。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was the focus of audits in the "audit storm" of direct subsidy school schools, has been given a written warning by the Education Bureau to promptly correct problems such as illegal property purchases and low utilisation of bursary reserves. ... Sources close to the government said that the Education Bureau believes that the tuition fee reduction is for students with financial needs and does not agree that it will be used to purchase equipment. The Bureau will pay attention to how the school ultimately implements the improvement of violations. If the results are not effective, the Education Bureau's permanent secretary-general will dispatch personnel to the school management committee to take over school administration."
- Ni, Qingjiang 倪清江; Xia, Zhili 夏志禮 (2010-11-27). "最後通牒即將到期校監校長拒轉業權 教局擬進駐真道校董會" [The ultimatum is about to expire. The school supervisor and principal refuse to transfer ownership. The Education Bureau plans to join the Logos Academy Board of Directors.]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). p. A5.
The article notes: "被審計署揭23宗罪的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院,挪用1,000萬元非政府資金購置3項物業,業權卻是校監和校長。教育局原來早已知悉,多番促請他們將業權轉回校方,但不獲理會,早前發出最後通牒,日內到期。若真道繼續當教育局無到,局方將派人進駐該校校董會,情形有如去年撤銷辦學權的臻美黃幹亨小學暨國中學校的翻版。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was exposed by the Audit Office for 23 crimes, misappropriated HK$10 million of non-governmental funds to purchase three properties, but the ownership was owned by the school supervisor and principal. It turned out that the Education Bureau had known about it for a long time and had repeatedly urged them to transfer the ownership back to the school, but was ignored. It had earlier issued an ultimatum that would expire within a few days. If Logos Academy continues to be in charge of the Education Bureau and there is no one, the Bureau will send people to the school board of directors, and the situation will be a replica of the Zhenmei Huangqianheng Primary School and Junior High School that revoked its schooling rights last year."
- "德信售校章利潤1.5倍 教局六方面跟進監察直資校" [Dexin's profit from selling school seals is 1.5 times. Education Bureau follows up on six aspects to monitor DSS schools]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-21. p. A7.
- "自辦刊物" [Self-organised publications]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2010-07-06. p. E6.
The column says at the bottom that it was written by the Sing Tao Daily editor-in-chief.
The column notes: "位於將軍澳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院,是近年區內成立的直資中學,該校就辦了一本名為《真道人》(見圖)的刊物,介紹學校的理念和發展,至今已經出版了兩期。 真道書院出版這本《真道人》,以一本機構刊物來說,可以說不簡單,新一期的內容除了由校長講解學校取得的國際認證AdvancED外,還有其他親子專題、閱讀版等,從內容、版面設計到紙質,都顯示投入了相當的資源。從刊物的製作班底看,除了校內老師班底,還有資深教育新聞從業員郭玉蘭參與,難怪專題報道形式和深度相當接近傳媒。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O is a direct subsidy secondary school established in the district in recent years. The school has published a publication called "Logos People" (see picture) to introduce the school's philosophy and development. So far, it has two issues were published. Logos Academy publishes "Logos People", which is not simple for an institutional publication. In addition to the principal explaining the international certification AdvanceED obtained by the school, the new issue also includes other parent-child topics, reading editions, etc. From the content, layout design to paper quality, it shows that considerable resources have been invested. Judging from the publication's production team, in addition to the school's teacher team, Guo Yulan, a senior education news practitioner, is also involved. No wonder the format and depth of the special report are quite similar to those of the media."
- Keep The additional sources provided by Cunard are sufficient to meet NSCHOOL, in addition there is more coverage where the school involved in a scandal where a member of leadership made a controversial statement regarding the 2019 protests, example article: [2]. Jumpytoo Talk 09:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 22:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, seems to meet GNG per the many sources above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Cunard's sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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! 04:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Baker Ninan Fenn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable religious figure. Half of the hits I get from searching for sources (string:"baker ninan fenn") are non-responsive; the other half are useless as sources for Fenn. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Kerala. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Diocesan bishops of major denominations have generally been held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES illustrates the consensus. BLP is irrelevant as to his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: This is the third time of thereabout. Please look at WP:BISHOPS. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yakob Elias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable religious figure. Source search (string:"yakob elias") returns nothing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Kerala. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Diocesan bishops of major denominations have generally been held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES illustrates the consensus. BLP is irrelevant as to his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Clean up and sourcing is not deletion. A Metropolitan of a major diocese is notable by virtue of his office per WP:BISHOPS. I still believe sources may exist offline. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 02:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per above. This church is a part of the wider Orthodox church and there is no reason why its bishops would not be notable. Keralan bishops of all denominations seem to be challenged more than European ones, presumably because most sources will be in the local languages and/or offline. Here are some additional Eng lang ones, searching on "Yakob Mar Elias": [3], [4], [5]. Ingratis (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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! 04:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Anthonios Yaqu'b (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable religious figure; both sources in the article are 404-compliant. Search for sources (string: "anthonios yaqub") turns up nothing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Kerala. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: The sources have been fixed to not be dead; the first is of unknown authorship and the second doesn't discuss Yaqu'b in depth (though "Yaq'ub" gets name-dropped a fair bit). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Diocesan bishops of major denominations have generally been held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES illustrates the consensus. BLP is irrelevant as to his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I don't know much about Syriac Orthodox Church but heading a Metropolice of a major city Manglore satisfies WP:CLERGY. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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! 04:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Abraham Julios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable religious figure. Google search (string:"abraham julios") turns up barely anything, and the lot of it is unusable as sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Kerala. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Diocesan bishops of major denominations have generally been held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES illustrates the consensus. BLP is irrelevant as to his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Maybe this is one of the deprecated places needing attention I. Wikipedia. That doesn't mean a clergy if such office won't be entered. By the Merit of the office, he is notable. I don't seem the nominator took this in or maybe had been nominated generally with others. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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! 04:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Mathew Moolakkatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable religious figure. The only sources I can find that discuss him at length (string: "Mathew Moolakkatt") are tied to a controversy and legal case about Catholic marriage practises. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Kerala. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Diocesan bishops of major denominations have generally been held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES illustrates the consensus. BLP is irrelevant as to his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I don't need to talk much here. I thought this has been emphasized before, that the Bishop or Archbishop of a particular diocese or Archdiocese is notable by the virtue of his office. It is an elected office for Wikipedia's sake. See WP:NBISHOP too, or WP:CLERGY. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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! 04:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thomas Koorilos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable religious figure. Google search (string:"thomas koorilos") turns up no usable sources what-so-ever, mainly profiles and name-drops. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Kerala. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Diocesan bishops of major denominations have generally been held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES illustrates the consensus. BLP is irrelevant as to his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- BLP is, however, relevant to what sort of content the article can have. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES illustrates the consensus. BLP is irrelevant as to his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Though a weak keep per WP:SIGCOV slight, the subject meets WP:SNG for religious related. A metropolitan Bishop is notable and there is possibility of sources about him. Clean up is not deletion pls! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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. ✗plicit 14:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hermie and Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Granted that I don't know what reference sources would discuss this Christian animated children's show but I didn't find anything in my online search that wasn't either user-generated content, product-focused (promotion) or sites that allowed users to view episodes. I found no secondary sources or SIGCOV. One site called it an "award-winning" show but I never could locate what that award was. Given the detail of content about the characters, I think this article mainly serves as a nostalgia page for IP editors to write about a series they might have watched when they were younger. Dare I say it? I don't think it is notable or encyclopedic. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Christianity. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: So far I've found one review in the Wichita Falls Times Record News: "DVD hangs on wing, prayer and a caterpillar", which has eight brief paragraphs. I'll see if I can find anything else. Toughpigs (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, Toughpigs, I'm impressed by your diligence. We have so many articles on marginal children's television series. I guess this one did have some coverage, at least in Wichita. Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep this UT Daily Beacon review is independent, extensive, and as RS as any college student publication would be. In combination with the above, that would be a notability pass. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Of note but not contributing to notability, Tim Conway's obituaries do seem to mention this series (he voiced the main character) among his other clearly more well-known roles. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The sources presented above might show this is notable enough. If a redirect target can be found, not opposed to the idea. Needs a bit of trimming.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Besides the reviews listed above, there is also this and this from The Dove Foundation and this from the School Library Journal. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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. I don't think a 3rd relisting would lead to a consensus. There is a basic difference of opinion here among well-intentioned editors on the quality of available sources and standards for notability that need to be met. Of course, those editors interested in pursuing a Redirect option can start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Cristo Rey San Diego High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE fail WP:SIRS, nothing addressing the subject - the San Diego campus - directly and indepth. Article is a unneeded CFORK of Cristo Rey Network, no objection to a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 17:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect. Per WP:ORGCRIT, local units of larger organizations need to show coverage of the sub-unit beyond the local area. All reliable, secondary sources cited here are local to San Diego. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Merge and redirectRedirect to Cristo Rey Network. No sources found outside of non-independent or non-local media that meet SIGCOV requirements. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)- Redirect to Cristo Rey Network. Not independently notable. It is already listed at the target, and there is not really anything that needs merging. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. See WP:NSCHOOL. WP:ORG specifically says in the first paragraph,
The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions,
(italics mine)religions or sects, and sports teams.
The appropriate guideline is thus not WP:ORGCRIT, but WP:SIGCOV, which says"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
Non-local sources are not required for GNG, and this article has 3 RS from local television news (CBS8 and 2 from ABC 10 News San Diego KGTV), as well as San Diego Entertainer Magazine and San Diego Business Journal, which are independent of the subject, as defined in SIGCOV. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)- Firstly, yes you are correct. A GNG pass is sufficient (SIGCOV is part of that but independent reliable secondary sources are still required - I think you address that though). My problem with the sources cited so far, however, is that these are all local, and describing the new school for what it has set up to be, and the way it is funded. There is, however, a case that there is something innovative (if not revolutionary) about this school, and that this will attract notice. What would clinch it for me is some national attention, or some attention in something other than a news report. I note that there is, in fact, only one ABC 10 News San Diego KGTV source, but even if there were more, they would all be treated as one for purposes of GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- National attention (or even a non-local source) is NOT a requirement of SIGCOV. That's the difference between the NORG requirement and GNG. Non-profit schools can meet the notability requirement with either NORG or GNG or both. This one meets GNG.
- I also found and added one additional source announcing a full-ride scholarship opportunity from the University of San Diego. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- An announcement of a scholarship is a primary source. Primary sources do not count towards GNG. Also the ABC 10 report is clearly not independent. The writer is a staff writer, but it is based entirely on an interview with the head, and ends with a fundraiser. It also has a questionable claim in it. How can someone be 300% below the poverty line? But I suppose bad maths is not an issue. The writer has a declared interest in faith based schools. The CBS8 source also has primary news/independence issues - it is a piece that is bylined "Cristo Rey San Diego High needs more corporate sponsors for work study program." It appears to be predicated on that basis. I do not see how any of this crosses the GNG threshold. If we have no national sources, local sources need to be in depth and to provide sufficient information to write an article. These sources do not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- GNG is a red herring in this thread. In response to @Grand'mere Eugene's comment that this would pass GNG with local sources, WP:NORG supersedes GNG (this is very clear at WP:ORGCRIT). And under WP:BRANCH, a local unit of a national org requires coverage in sources outside of the local area to be considered notable. The only notability this local school has is tied to the unique model of its network, which is why a redirect is best. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- An announcement of a scholarship is a primary source. Primary sources do not count towards GNG. Also the ABC 10 report is clearly not independent. The writer is a staff writer, but it is based entirely on an interview with the head, and ends with a fundraiser. It also has a questionable claim in it. How can someone be 300% below the poverty line? But I suppose bad maths is not an issue. The writer has a declared interest in faith based schools. The CBS8 source also has primary news/independence issues - it is a piece that is bylined "Cristo Rey San Diego High needs more corporate sponsors for work study program." It appears to be predicated on that basis. I do not see how any of this crosses the GNG threshold. If we have no national sources, local sources need to be in depth and to provide sufficient information to write an article. These sources do not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Firstly, yes you are correct. A GNG pass is sufficient (SIGCOV is part of that but independent reliable secondary sources are still required - I think you address that though). My problem with the sources cited so far, however, is that these are all local, and describing the new school for what it has set up to be, and the way it is funded. There is, however, a case that there is something innovative (if not revolutionary) about this school, and that this will attract notice. What would clinch it for me is some national attention, or some attention in something other than a news report. I note that there is, in fact, only one ABC 10 News San Diego KGTV source, but even if there were more, they would all be treated as one for purposes of GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment WP:NSCHOOL is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) under the section, "Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations" that specifies,
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page), the general notability guideline, or both.
Either NORG, or GNG, or both. GNG is thus not a "red herring", but one of the ways schools may satisfy WP's notability requirement. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC) - Keep - Passes GNG. See, for example: this. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- That is the CBS8 source considered above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep the CBS8 and SDEntertainer sources are sufficient for GNG; the arguments that this is insufficient because this is a school affiliated with a national organization are unpersuasive. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that this is not all that the discussion says is wrong with these two local news sources. Sources must be multiple, with significant coverage, independent of the subject, in reliable secondary sources. As above, these are not independent, aspects of them are primary sources, coverage of the school itself is limited and we are still short of multiple. Reliability has not been assessed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I dispute your definition of "independent". Just because a TV station interviews somebody with the school doesn't mean it's not independent. And the "byline" you claim earlier is actually part of the headline. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the headline. So the article is not independent. Likewise I said rather more than just that the article was entirely off an interview with the head. The fact it ends with a fundraiser is also pertinent, and that is not the only problem identified with that source. Now you have made 100 edits to Wikipedia in your 3 days here, and nearly half of these are to AfD or RfD. You are very welcome to the discussion, but might I suggest there may be a little more to the evaluation of sources then you may yet be aware of. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Are you saying that a CBS station isn't "independent" of a private school because the headline mentions the name of the school? I agree the source isn't perfect, but claims that CBS isn't "independent" of this school make me dismiss everything you say. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly I didn't say that. The concern is that the headline makes quite clear that this local news article is predicated on a call for local businesses to act as sponsors for their local school. "... needs more corporate sponsors for work study program." Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Are you saying that a CBS station isn't "independent" of a private school because the headline mentions the name of the school? I agree the source isn't perfect, but claims that CBS isn't "independent" of this school make me dismiss everything you say. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the headline. So the article is not independent. Likewise I said rather more than just that the article was entirely off an interview with the head. The fact it ends with a fundraiser is also pertinent, and that is not the only problem identified with that source. Now you have made 100 edits to Wikipedia in your 3 days here, and nearly half of these are to AfD or RfD. You are very welcome to the discussion, but might I suggest there may be a little more to the evaluation of sources then you may yet be aware of. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I dispute your definition of "independent". Just because a TV station interviews somebody with the school doesn't mean it's not independent. And the "byline" you claim earlier is actually part of the headline. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that this is not all that the discussion says is wrong with these two local news sources. Sources must be multiple, with significant coverage, independent of the subject, in reliable secondary sources. As above, these are not independent, aspects of them are primary sources, coverage of the school itself is limited and we are still short of multiple. Reliability has not been assessed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment— I added another source from ProQuest, which is accessible via Wikipedia Library. To access this source, login to Wikimedia, then login to WP Library before clicking the ProQuest 2550545515 id link.
- — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reviewing this source, it is another local news source. "The San Diego Business Journal (SDBJ) is a weekly newspaper in San Diego, California covering local business news." - San Diego Business Journal. It is written by the paper's editor (Jay Harn), and is not clearly predicated on a funding drive. The coverage again only talks about the funding model. We really aren't getting much to say about the school beyond the funding model, and if that model were so significant, there ought to be national coverage. As a news source, reporting is a primary source, and sources should be secondary. I still believe that if the funding model itself were notable, a national news source would clinch it. Otherwise, for purely local coverage, more depth is needed about the school itself, such that an article about the school can be written. I will say I am not far from a keep here - I just don't think local reports about the funding model are enough on their own. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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 arguments to delete are a lot stronger than those to keep, with the one exception of Culllen's suggestion that this be pruned to a list of notable publications; and even there, other editors point out that such a list may duplicate existing articles. The usefulness of this list as a resource for editors is not a persuasive argument at AfD, though I would gladly provide a userspace copy for anyone who wishes to turn this into a project-space resource. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- List of Watch Tower Society publications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a list covering every publication ever published by Jehovah's Witnesses. I do not think it merits inclusion per WP:NLIST. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:LINKFARM. This is a listing of every known publication (some linked, some not) generated by the Jehovah's Witnesses dating back to the 19th century, up to the current 21st Century. — Maile (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree with the deletion. If one wants a list of the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses, one can visit the official website. (I know that not every publication ist available there. However, the existence of secret publications like Shepherd the Flock of God is easily found on the Internet. To include this big list just because of the few secret ones is disproportionate.) Junkönig (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Most of the publications are listed in the Watch Tower Publications Index, which is ‘on the official website’ but isn’t prominently featured, nor in a particularly helpful format, and it isn’t as straightforwardly accessible as suggested here. Only recent publications are prominently featured on the official site, and none of the early works.—Jeffro77 Talk 13:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I fail to see how WP:LINKFARM applies here. As for WP:NLIST, I will quote directly from the guideline to argue for this articles existence
- "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."
- As the JW's and the WTS are in themselves notable, this list, by WP:NLIST, appears to be a valid addition. I will also copy/paste my argument from the first AfD I participated in on this topic back in 2015, as I believe the argument still stands
- "I'm drawn to this line in the WP:NOTDIRECTORY rules "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". I personally believe that this significantly contributes to the list topic (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses). Dr. Zoe Knox, in an article entitled "Writing Witness History: The Historiography of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania" (published in the Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011) notices that "While a handful of annotated bibliographies and literature reviews have been published, usually as an addendum to monographs, there has been no sustained attempt to survey and chart scholarship on Witness history", and also mentions that "the Society has placed far less importance on the production and preservation of material on the organisation’s own history, which has led to a limited engagement with historical inquiry". I believe that this list, from a purely academic standpoint, helps significantly with the latter issue as raised by Dr. Knox by providing a reference point that the JW's themselves do not."
- So in sum, I would suggest keeping this list but possibly trimming it a bit. But NOT wholesale deletion. Vyselink (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's not about the notability of JWs as a whole but if there are reliable sources that list stuff like "group of every JW publication since the 1800s" together. That's what NLIST is talking about since notability isn't inherited. The most notable publications (the Watchtower and Awake, Photo Drama of Creation, etc) are already somewhat covered over at Jehovah's Witnesses publications so this list is duplicative at best and otherwise "indiscriminate" at worst. I suppose one could propose a merge if you feel that strongly about it? I'm not sure it would all that useful from this perspective but I wanted to offer it as an alternative. Knox's argument about the lack of interest sounds more like a convincing argument for deletion, sadly. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Interjected comment: I would argue that this part of NINI applies here: "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums". WTS publications are books/magazines (and on occasion films) and personally I think meet the "certain circumstances". I believe that this list does however need to be trimmed (and doesn't need anywhere near as many pictures). Also, as a side note, Dr. Knox did NOT say there was a lack of interest, she said it hasn't been done. There is a difference, especially in today's academic publishing world. Vyselink (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- I do not intend for this to be a "bundled" nomination but for context... the companion article List of Jehovah's Witnesses publications has a tag for primary sources. Since what exactly a primary source is might not be as glaringly obvious to a non-JW, these would be refs 1–16, 22–27, 29, 32, and 34. I think this list article has the potential to be improved and the tag addressed as there are some JW publications that are collectively talked about in reliable sources. List of Watch Tower Society publications (the subject of this deletion nomination) is literally intended as a list for every Watchtower publication since its inception and all of the cited references are primary sources. Hence my hesitation in suggesting a merge as a valid alternative, even if it technically is one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- So in sum, I would suggest keeping this list but possibly trimming it a bit. But NOT wholesale deletion. Vyselink (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep per Vyselink’s rationale. Alternatively,Move to a JW WikiProject subpage as a resource.—Jeffro77 Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)- What about Vyselink's rationale made you change your mind? The reason I'm asking is because you were the who started the first AfD for this back in 2015. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- It became evident at the previous AfD 9 years ago that most of the editors in the JW WikiProject group considered the page to be a useful resource. Hence my suggestion at this time to instead move it to a subpage of the WikiProject. Also, do you still have exactly the same opinions about everything as you did 9 years ago?—Jeffro77 Talk 21:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, obviously people can change their opinions over time. I was just curious what exactly made you change your mind since you believed that this page should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR back then. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- I also said in the previous AfD that the list of publications is available from the JW website. However, the official site omits the existence of some literature (e.g., the elders’ manuals). Additionally, for various reasons, some editors might be reluctant to use the JW official website. But as previously indicated, it may be better as a subpage of the WikiProject.—Jeffro77 Talk 22:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- You're free to create subpages at the JW WikiProject, I'm not going to try and stop you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I also said in the previous AfD that the list of publications is available from the JW website. However, the official site omits the existence of some literature (e.g., the elders’ manuals). Additionally, for various reasons, some editors might be reluctant to use the JW official website. But as previously indicated, it may be better as a subpage of the WikiProject.—Jeffro77 Talk 22:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, obviously people can change their opinions over time. I was just curious what exactly made you change your mind since you believed that this page should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR back then. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- It became evident at the previous AfD 9 years ago that most of the editors in the JW WikiProject group considered the page to be a useful resource. Hence my suggestion at this time to instead move it to a subpage of the WikiProject. Also, do you still have exactly the same opinions about everything as you did 9 years ago?—Jeffro77 Talk 21:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Your pointy response runs counter to my suggestion to move the page as a possible option for the AfD. As such, I have created the subpage separately.--Jeffro77 Talk 09:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I was not trying to be pointy. I didn't say anything initially because an AfD doesn't need to happen for a WikiProject to do its thing but you kept bringing it up so I figured actually saying this would be helpful. I was literally just pointing out that you didn't need my (or anyone else's permission) to do what you wanted to do there. Maybe it would've been less likely to be misconstrued if I had stated I had no objections? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- It would be less likely to be misconstrued if your response was consistent with the fact that I suggested moving the page into the WikiProject namespace as an outcome of the AfD. That is still the preferred option in order to retain the page history. Moving this article into the other namespace is intrinsic to the purpose of the AfD, and necessarily requires ‘permission’ here for it to be done properly.—Jeffro77 Talk 20:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I was not trying to be pointy. I didn't say anything initially because an AfD doesn't need to happen for a WikiProject to do its thing but you kept bringing it up so I figured actually saying this would be helpful. I was literally just pointing out that you didn't need my (or anyone else's permission) to do what you wanted to do there. Maybe it would've been less likely to be misconstrued if I had stated I had no objections? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Your pointy response runs counter to my suggestion to move the page as a possible option for the AfD. As such, I have created the subpage separately.--Jeffro77 Talk 09:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The page lists publications of the Watch Tower Society, including materials that predate the existence of Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, that error does not really affect the validity of the nomination.—Jeffro77 Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment—On the basis that the nominator has specifically stated that there is no intention to challenge the creation of the subpage in the JW WikiProject as a resource for editors, I would in that case not be opposed to deleting the copy in the article namespace. (However, it is preferable that this page be moved to the other namespace to retain the page history.)—Jeffro77 Talk 13:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment In a perfect scenario, these all should probably have been put on Wikisource. Looks like someone started such an idea at Wikisource, The Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, but it never got beyond that. — Maile (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, trans wiki, or move to wiki-namespace Any of these options are fine, but I agree with Clover that the list doesn't satisfy the notability requirements. (t · c) buidhe 01:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, This is a useful list that gives good information and article is well sourced. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Davidgoodheart: You do realize that all of the sources cited in this list are the religion's own publications, right? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and move to something like List of notable Watch Tower Society publications (emphasis added). An inclusion criterion requiring that the publications entered on the list are the subject of acceptable Wikipedia articles instantly transforms the list from a sprawling hodge-podge into something of encyclopedic value. Alumni lists and many other lists prone to indiscriminate growth routinely have this type of inclusion criteria, to the benefit of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- That does make sense in the context of a page in the article namespace, but it would kind of defeat the purpose of the usefulness of the list as a resource for editors. I have therefore changed my previous '!vote' from 'Keep or move to WikiProject namespace' to only the latter. We already have Jehovah's Witnesses publications for expanded information about notable literature.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Keepwithout prejudice to trimming or reworking. Once we've decided that Watch Tower Society publications are notable, it's an editorial decision whether to list them, and then another editorial decision whether to spin that list out from the main article. I would buy that, if there were only a dozen or so publications, then they would all be listed in the main article. Given that there are many, I don't see a problem with splitting the list off into its own article. I would also be shocked if there weren't plenty of sources which discuss Watch Tower Society publications as a group, which is what's required for NLIST (it doesn't require every item on the list to be included in said groupings). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)- @Rhododendrites: I understand your rationale here, but I suppose my other concern is what we should do about Jehovah's Witnesses publications then? Maybe a really really selective merge between the two pages? If we do do that, it'd be useful to be clear what exactly we are merging. Or a redirect? The latter's purpose was intended to be what you describe so it doesn't make sense to have two duplicative lists. As for Watchtower Society publications as a group... secondary sources rarely go into detail. They tend to only mention a small handful of them (typically the The Watchtower, Awake!, Shepherd the Flock of God, and the New World Translation) and not be nearly anything as extensive as this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: I would like to refute what you say here:
I would also be shocked if there weren't plenty of sources which discuss Watch Tower Society publications as a group
, see Vyselink's comment above. Feel free to try and prove me wrong, but I'm fairly certain about this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC) - The best source I can find dealing with this subject would be this, which expresses a similar sentiment to Knox above in the first few pages and would imply that sources about JW publications as a group don't really exist. This could be used as a source for the handful of publications it mentions, though. These are:
- The Watchtower and Awake!
- The Secret to Family Happiness
- Questions Young People Ask
- Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses
- Jehovah's Witnesses: Proclaimers of God's Kingdom
- Reasoning from the Scriptures
- Knowledge that Leads to Everlasting Life.
- I think that past this point it's probably best for me to step down and refrain from further discussion. I will respond to any direct inquiries if one wishes to make them but I don't want to discourage further participation from others who may have other arguments. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I'd ask how anyone writing in-depth about the beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses would avoid doing a literature review of Watch Tower Society publications, covering many of them as a group? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: People writing in-depth about the Witnesses aren't doing literature reviews as far as I can tell. I've spent a lot of time improving the JW topic area and replacing citations to primary sources with secondary ones. For my work on the Jehovah's Witnesses article itself, this has meant citing George Chryssides repeatedly. He rarely goes beyond reviewing literature outside of the Watchtower and Awake!. Essentially everyone I've ever read who studies the Witnesses takes that approach, occasionally referencing other publications where necessary. But it's always a very small handful and nothing like this list. If I had to guess why, I would say it's because you don't need to look at every JW publication to learn about their beliefs. They're largely duplicative to each other, content-wise. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the info, Clovermoss (here and on my usertalk). While I'm surprised there aren't more literature reviews of JW publications, it's not something I can see myself doing a deep dive into to properly support my keep !vote in the near future. Content to strike my !vote and defer to what you've found. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: People writing in-depth about the Witnesses aren't doing literature reviews as far as I can tell. I've spent a lot of time improving the JW topic area and replacing citations to primary sources with secondary ones. For my work on the Jehovah's Witnesses article itself, this has meant citing George Chryssides repeatedly. He rarely goes beyond reviewing literature outside of the Watchtower and Awake!. Essentially everyone I've ever read who studies the Witnesses takes that approach, occasionally referencing other publications where necessary. But it's always a very small handful and nothing like this list. If I had to guess why, I would say it's because you don't need to look at every JW publication to learn about their beliefs. They're largely duplicative to each other, content-wise. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I'd ask how anyone writing in-depth about the beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses would avoid doing a literature review of Watch Tower Society publications, covering many of them as a group? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: I would like to refute what you say here:
- @Rhododendrites: I understand your rationale here, but I suppose my other concern is what we should do about Jehovah's Witnesses publications then? Maybe a really really selective merge between the two pages? If we do do that, it'd be useful to be clear what exactly we are merging. Or a redirect? The latter's purpose was intended to be what you describe so it doesn't make sense to have two duplicative lists. As for Watchtower Society publications as a group... secondary sources rarely go into detail. They tend to only mention a small handful of them (typically the The Watchtower, Awake!, Shepherd the Flock of God, and the New World Translation) and not be nearly anything as extensive as this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - I am most swayed by Clovermoss's arguments. I considered !voting to move to WP space, but upon further consideration, it seems inappropriate to preserve an index of sources that are pretty much guaranteed to be primary and unreliable for any material they cover. signed, Rosguill talk 16:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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