Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

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


Recent changes of Christianity-related talkpages

4 July 2015

3 July 2015

2 July 2015

1 July 2015

30 June 2015

29 June 2015


Alerts for Christianity-related articles

Today's featured article requests
Articles for deletion
Proposed deletions
Categories for discussion
(762 more...)
Featured article candidates
Good article nominees
Good article reassessments
Peer reviews
Requested moves


Christianity Deletion list



Christianity[edit]

Presbyterian Reformed Church in Vanuatu[edit]

Presbyterian Reformed Church in Vanuatu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Presbyterian Reformed Church in Vanuatu" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Article has only one reference which is not WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject. If other types of references cannot be provided, the article should probably be deleted. KDS4444Talk 18:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Watch Tower Society publications[edit]

List of Watch Tower Society publications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of Watch Tower Society publications" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This article has been given some latitude because of the effort that has gone into compiling it. However, Wikipedia is not a directory, the listed entries are not for the purpose of linking to other articles, and the article is not based on any secondary sources. Jeffro77 (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete I'm sure it's a useful list, but it's not what Wikipedia is for. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, just as any non-selective list of all books from any other publisher would most likely be. I'd support any efforts to move this somewhere else if there's another wiki where it could go. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep useful list in the context of what makes lists appropriate and useful on wikipedia. Entries do link to other articles and I'm not sure that more won't. Claims that it "fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY" need to point to which of the inappropriate categories it falls into, it doesn't appear to me to meat any of them. Article could be improved by telescoping it down to the series of publications (rather than listing e.g. each tract in a series), which are more likely to meet notability and have articles written about them --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The article contains links to only three articles about publications specific to JWs (and one that is specific to the Bible Student movement), in addition to a few Bible translations not unique to JWs. As such, it is not especially useful as a resource for that purpose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Keep with a change or two 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. As for the former issue, could we not turn this page from PURELY JW publications to a list of all publications specifically about/by JW's? Dr. Knox's publications (she has at least three that I know of), Penton's, Franz's, scholarly articles written by others etc could all be listed here. If there is already an article with that information, then I propose moving this one into that one. Vyselink (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Years ago, the article started out as a hodge-podge of publications about JWs and publications of JWs. It was terrible, and considerably worse than the current state of affairs. Additionally, the current article title would not be suitable for a list of publications about JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. But my primary point is still valid. I agree with User:Samuel J. Howard's assertion that WP:NOTDIRECTORY doesn't apply here, and restate my own personal assertion that the list significantly contributes to the list topic, especially given the Witness habit of discarding older publications as noted by Dr. Knox. As a PhD candidate whose research is the JW's, this list was very useful for determining what publications I did not have or that might be relevant to my studies. Vyselink (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really convinced that your own use of the list as a directory constitutes a compelling argument that WP:NOTDIRECTORY doesn't apply.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, fair enough, I merely used my own experience as an example. You have stated that "I'm not aware of any precedent necessitating an exhaustive list of everything published by a particular publishing house", but this is misleading. The JW's are not merely a "publishing house", besides the fact that they don't publish anything but their own work, but are a religion who has used publishing in an unprecedented fashion to preach. Their publishing's are (I would argue) as important, if not more so, than their door-to-door preaching work, and have been since their inception. They are therefore not simply a "publishing house", but a highly organized organization that relies on their publishing's in order to promote their beliefs. While the article need not include EVERYTHING that the JW's have published, deleting this list wholesale would be a phenomenal loss of information. Vyselink (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The article is not about what JWs have published. It is about what has been published by the Watch Tower Society, which has been around for several decades longer than Jehovah's Witnesses. The fact that the publishing company is associated with a religious denomination does not confer any special privilege on the publishing company for the purposes of an article, regardless of the measure of success the religious entity as had as a result of its close association with a publishing firm (and it certainly is not appropriate for Wikipedia to promote the Society's publications on that basis). Discussion of how the Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses have benefitted from the use of a publishing corporation belongs in articles such as Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, History of Jehovah's Witnesses and Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine (where supported by suitable sources), but does not necessitate a separate list of works.
Whether it would be a 'loss of information' is not the issue. The issue is whether that information is appropriate for Wikipedia. I have put a bit of effort into improving the list myself, but the amount of effort that goes into an article also is not what determines whether it is suitable to retain. The full list of publications by the Watch Tower Society is available in the Watchtower Publications Index, which is available on the publisher's website.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The notability criteria for lists is that "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". That criteria does not appear to have been met in this case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Regarding concerns about the article Jehovah's Witnesses publications, I started a section at the article's Talk page recently, and will raise an AfD in the next couple of weeks if suitable improvements are not made there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:CSC #2, WP:LISTPURP and WP:LISTN: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Also WP:OUTCOMES#Lists: "Lists are more likely to be kept if they are limited in scope, are based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, have verifiable content, and have a logical reason for their construction." VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Does an exhaustive list of publications associated with a minor religious denomination really "fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes"? It only fulfils a promotional purpose so far as information. With only four linked publications (in addition to some Bible translations that did not originate with the publisher), and a paucity of notability suggesting against extras, it certainly doesn't fulfil a navigational purpose. And it isn't clear what 'development' would result from the list.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Replying to Jeffro77, throughout its history the Watch Tower Society has been a prodigious publisher of books, pamphlets, tracts and magazines, most of which have been publicly distributed and all of which have been, effectively, required reading of adherents of the Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses. Those books chart the evolution of the religion's doctrines and dogmatic assertions and create a snapshot of those doctrines at the point of publication. Most have also been laboriously "studied" by adherents, and contain the beliefs they were individually required to hold at the time of publication. Documenting those publications as a topical and chronological list is of encyclopedic value and a worthwhile appendix to articles on the JWs and their beliefs and practices. BlackCab (TALK) 12:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any precedent necessitating an exhaustive list of everything published by a particular publishing house. The importance of the publisher's literature to the members of the religion with which the publishing house is associated does not convey external notability on the literature. The list provides no information about how the books "chart the evolution of the religion's doctrines", which is already handled better at Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Independent Lutheran Diocese[edit]

Independent Lutheran Diocese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Independent Lutheran Diocese" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This small denomination in Oregan was deleted via a full debate in 2009, and it's been back at CSD again. I had a look for news hits, but could only find things like this press release. However, I'm not convinced it's completely unsalvagable, so I'm bringing discussion here to see if anyone else can do it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'd looked for sources and honestly, I couldn't find anything. Basically this is an organization that someone started up on their own in 2005. Lutherans don't have one specific central government that they answer to akin to how Catholics generally answer to an archdiocese or the Pope, but they do have larger organizations like the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. The ILD is not a part of any of these other denominations of Lutheranism from what I can see. (In other words while it can be similar to various orthodox Lutheran denominations it is not a part of those denominations and should be seen as a separate group entirely.) It looks like this is also something that just about anyone can join, so it's not like it covers a set portion of territory like the Missouri Synod does. In any case, despite being around for 10 years I cannot find anything out there other than routine notifications of events and various primary sources like press releases- and I've looked under ILD and its original name, Old Lutheran Church in America. This seems to be your run of the mill small faction where someone decided to start up their own organization. Christianity (especially Lutheranism) has quite a few of these, where people decide to start up their own organization where they say they're going back to the "true" path. Per the article, this organization oversees less than 30 churches. Given that there's pretty much zero coverage other than (if the article is to be believed) a mention in a Northwestern Publishing book (a religious publisher that publishes things like devotionals and Bibles, so it's not an academic press per Wikipedia's criteria), I honestly don't think that this would merit an entry on Wikipedia. It also doesn't help that it's incredibly promotional in tone and has been used as a COI WP:SOAPBOX for years. In other words, it's not like the more well-known and established Lutheran Synods so it shouldn't be considered on par with those. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In other words, it's not part of the International Lutheran Council or any of the denominations listed here, to the best of my knowledge. By all accounts it looks to be a new and independent (hence its name) organization that operates separately from the more established Lutheran bodies. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep -- As I read it this is a small denomination. We normally allow articles on denominations, though not necessarily those on local churches. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Denominations are generally notable precisely because they are usually covered in directories, as this one is. I can't access WELS and other Lutherans, but that doesn't matter. StAnselm (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind an inherent notability criteria for religions (anyone got a link to policy?) but the content still needs to be verifiable, which at the moment it largely isn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is - look up WELS. StAnselm (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If this is kept then this will need to be re-written from scratch since this is pretty unambiguously promotional. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I do have to ask though - what is the criteria for even being in this directory? Is it the type of thing where anyone can join if they have a certain number of churches under their belt? Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I mean, what if it's basically the type of thing where it's a directory where anyone can be listed? What concerns me here is that we don't do this for other organizations that contain multiple groups, so I'm not exactly sure why this would be different for religious organizations. (As I see it, this looks to be more of an organization/association than a denomination per se, really - it even describes itself as an association in the article.) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • At the very least if this is kept, I'd like to request that the original editor not make edits on the page since he's the one that has been adding the various promotional prose and has been using it as an extension of the organization's website. I don't really think that he's able to edit without making it promotional or non-NPOV. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

David R. Anderson (Theologian)[edit]

David R. Anderson (Theologian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "David R. Anderson (Theologian)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Questionable notability. 1 independent ref. lots of self published books. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'd probably recommend speedying this since this is a pretty unambiguously promotional page for the theologian. The theological view section alone is pretty spammy since the use of quotes comes across as a promotional blurb for the religion itself. I'm also mildly worried that the two accounts editing the pages might be the same person (sockpuppetry) or two people working in tandem (meatpuppetry) since User:GraceTheology originally created these in the draftspace and then after they were all declined User:KeelanBilog signed up for an account and cut/pasted two of the pages into the mainspace. I may open up an SPI to this end, although I think that this is likely meatpuppetry more than sockpuppetry. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm really not finding much out there. The thing about theology is that despite the amount of believers, it's a pretty lonely field that doesn't garner a huge amount of non-primary sources. For every 100 theologians there may be 2-5 that will gain coverage to where they'd merit a Wikipedia article, and this is likely being pretty generous. The mainstream media and reliable sources that would cover theologians and theological topics in a manner that would make them a RS per Wikipedia's guidelines are pretty few and far between. This doesn't mean that they don't exist or that it's impossible to get coverage, but there are only a few places that focus on this topic and many, many people jockeying for attention. As such, they are extremely selective in what they cover - far more so than in other disciplines like science, math, philosophy, and so on. It looks like many places that have covered Anderson has been places associated with him in some form or fashion or they're in places that really wouldn't be considered RS per Wikipedia's guidelines. Offhand I don't see where the journal of the Grace Evangelical Society would count as a RS, which is kind of an example of the issue with finding coverage for theologians. It doesn't mean that Anderson isn't well thought of or that he might not have done impressive things, just that so far I can't find anything to show that he's notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just can't find anything out there other than press releases and trivial mentions in local press. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Theology is not a serious academic subject but a joke. How can you study that which doesn't exist? Most of the "theologians" produce barely disguised pseudo-intellectual wishful thinking sold in volume to naive followers. What matters in religion is not how logical it is, since it is illogical, but how many people are sheepish enough to follow it. Le petit fromage (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The closing admin should please completely disregard the above !vote, as it is completely off-topic. Agricola44 (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
  • Weak keep - I think his output as an author. Founding a series of churches also suggests notability. Taking these together there is just about enough to merit keeping it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Church Fall Festival[edit]

Church Fall Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Church Fall Festival" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

The article was prodded by Vrac as unreferenced original research; the prod was removed by Wiki you now, Wiki you later! who nominated it for speedy deletion as a hoax. It's not a hoax; Fall Festivals are held by the United Methodists and some Catholic and Baptist churches. That brings us back to unsourced OR. I found some local news about specific Fall Festivals but no general coverage of the subject. Huon (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete: Reiterate the prod rationale of unreferenced original research. It's not a "holiday" nor "a substitute for Halloween"; not notable or specific enough as type of festival to merit its own article, probably not a useful redirect either. Vrac (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not noble enough. Rowdy the Ant talk to Rowdy 23:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Sorry, but stating that the "holiday" probably is a substitute for another holiday is a great way to discredit the entire article, especially when there are no citations. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Not quite a hoax, but hardly a common term. All we have is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedic article. It might be rediredcted to (say) Harvest festival, but it is not an obvious search term. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Medina Pullings[edit]

Medina Pullings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Medina Pullings" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Non-notable. Google searches show only a few passing mentions - no in-depth coverage. Article fails to establish notability, TBN website confirms only 5 episodes as a host in 2007. GermanJoe (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Presenting 5 episodes of a long-running Tele-evangelist show does not show notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Cedric Chambers[edit]

Cedric Chambers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Cedric Chambers" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:ARTIST. The only notable work of art that the artist made was only covered by two reliable sources (Huffington Post and Christian Post), but this is far from being classified as having "won significant critical attention". Claims that the piece was one of the most offensive painting ever created have only been made by unreliable sources. None of the other criteria under WP:ARTIST have been met, and the subject does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree, although we accept lowbrow work if popular, this doesn't represent significant coverage. ///08:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le petit fromage (talkcontribs)
  • Delete -- A young artist who has succeeded in getting pictures into a lot of exhibitions, but still a young man and I doubt he in notable yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm the creator of the page. I just found this additional citation published in The Mirror using HighBeam. If anyone having subscription could check it out? Mr RD (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Runcton Priory[edit]

Runcton Priory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Runcton Priory" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

As it stands the article does not meet WP:NOTE. The article is unsourced so I searched online and, other then the fact that it existed, I could find nothing to add that would make the priory worthy of having an article. Now if anyone else can find and add info to improve the article I will be happy to withdraw this MarnetteD|Talk 14:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a bit of history on the British History website. Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete (and a lot of siblings) unless expanded during AFD period. I looked at Category:Monasteries in West Sussex. It looks as if User:Starzynka (now blocked) created a string of place-holder stubs in September 2010. Six weeks later he was blocked and declared himelf retired. A few of the articles in that category have substantive articles, but there are a lot of similar stubs. The category probably needs to have a list created as its main article to replace the stubs. I am not saying that an article on Runcton Priory could not exist as a legitimate article, merely that this and its sibling stubs need converting to redlinks in a list article, until someone is prepared to write substantive articles. Material certainly exists to make this possible, but I do not have the time to do it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - unsourced stub, no sources to be found, except the abovementioned link, priory ceased to exist in 1260, so the subject may be mentioned in any article on some extant place or some notable succeeding/superior religious organization, if that can be determined. Kraxler (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm a softie for historical articles, which IMHO, are what an encyclopedia is all about. Would rather have a wiki full of historical priory stubs than full of mindless articles about pokemon or porn stars. Anyway, found some sources in just a few minutes searching:
  • The Victoria History of the County of Sussex, Volume 2, [1]
  • The Victoria History of the County of Norfolk, Volume 2, [2]
  • Chinchester District Council, Runcton Conservation Area [3]
-- RoySmith (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you about historical articles, but the sources you cite are trivial mentions, not in-depth coverage required under the guidelines. #3 has a few words about Runcton Priory but also only in context with the Abbey of Troam and the Priory (later Abbey) of Bruton. Kraxler (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • SoftDelete, nominate other one-liner stubs in the category for soft-deletion, and create a list of them all. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Soft delete I agree with @Davidwr:, a list of all of them is much better than 1-line stubs. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yahweh's Assembly in Yahshua[edit]

Yahweh's Assembly in Yahshua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Yahweh's Assembly in Yahshua" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Reason This page should be incorporated in the Sacred Name Movement page. Lacks references and is not notable enough for its own page. In Citer (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge -- This reads as if it is a single congregation, which has splintered from a larger movement. The movement probably qualifies for an article as being a small denomination, but local churches are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yahweh's Assembly in Messiah[edit]

Yahweh's Assembly in Messiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Yahweh's Assembly in Messiah" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Reason

I think this page should be deleted because of WP:NOTABILITY and because it doesn't have any real sources. Let it be merged with the Sacred Name Movement article. Thanks. In Citer (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge -- This reads as if it is a single congregation, which has splintered from a larger movement. The movement probably qualifies for an article as being a small denomination, but local churches are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - they're a church, and a stand-alone and referenced subject. Shouldn't remove for arguably reasons of personal taste or "I don't like". They're notable enough, it seems. Gabby Merger (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses in Mozambique[edit]

Jehovah's Witnesses in Mozambique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jehovah's Witnesses in Mozambique" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Insufficient notability. Entire section 'First contact' is a copyright violation from the cited source (translated back into English from Portuguese version but obviously consistent with the English version). Apart from a very brief mention in a news article about a broader subject, the only non-primary source is a Microsoft Word document someone has uploaded in cloud storage. Merge brief details to Religion in Mozambique. Jeffro77 (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: In case there is any doubt, the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses in Mozambique is not a notable subject is not intended to suggest that either Jehovah's Witnesses or Mozambique are not notable subjects. Jehovah's Witnesses do not make up a significant proportion of the population of Mozambique (0.23%), and Jehovah's Witnesses in Mozambique do not make up a significant proportion of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide (0.69%).--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete: Proselytizing. Merge, if necessary, a sentence or two (a fact, and therefore not really a merge) to Religion in Mozambique. This article as it stands is POV, employing internal sources, and a familiar story of persecution and perseverance of the Elect. Hithladaeus (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Maintain :I did not tell very well known history for anything, but because there are facts that prove the veracity of the story, and following a policy of fundamental here (Wikipedia) is verifiability or reliable sources and do not see where is the fault of this article to be being discussed ... I not only good English as can be noted'm collaborator in Wikipedia in Portuguese and here colaboradoro by interest ... However, one should not use personal reasons for discussions on certain issues, then I suggest the mention of the failure of the article and I do not consider fault what my colleague said to be counting "very well-known story."rgimo (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses in Mozambique are not especially notable either in respect to Mozambique or Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses have had government opposition in various countries, and a section about Mozambique could be added to Jehovah's Witnesses and governments for that purpose (if there are sufficient sources). It does not justify a separate article, and certainly not one that is based only on primary sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I declined a speedy; sections are a copyvio as statd, but not the entire article. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Religion in Mozambique: not independently notable as a group. Esquivalience t 03:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep -- This is a modest denomination. I think that a denomination with 90 congregations in UK or US would be allowed an article. The fact thast it is in an African country should make no differnence. Merging with Religon in Mozambique would be liable to unbalance that article, but a plain redirect would be unhelpful as it would not be to a place where there was any content. Personally I have no time for this sect, but if they have a significnat penetration into a country, an artivle ought to be allowed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The fact that it 'is an African country' has nothing to do with anything. The subject is not supported by reliable secondary sources. JWs in Mozambique make up a negligible proportion of people in Mozambique and of JWs worldwide. Also, your example of 'a denomination with 90 congregations in UK or US' isn't even supported by articles under that criteria. The broader subject of JWs generally is very well covered on Wikipedia. Less than a quarter of 1 percent does not constitute "significant penetration into a country".--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Religion in Mozambique. The subject isn't notable and notability is a must-have for standalone articles. Article content only has to be verifiable and as such it can be added my suggested target article. AadaamS (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I fail to see any notability. It seems like a very small number of people. The Portuguese article (primarily language of Mozambique) is also suspect - first subsection is "First contact with the truth"!!! МандичкаYO
The creator and primary author of the Portuguese article is the same person who created the article in English. As you have suggested, the Portuguese version is not neutral. It also most likely incorporates copyright violations, as that article formed the basis for the English article which contains entire sections of translated copyrighted text.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Peterkingiron, many articles that are created come from an influential country are approved without any criticism. As already discussed I approve the article as it tells a real fact and we see that their history is real abase sources quoted. Prosuponho that there are many items with a single source, but insentos of criticism ... That's all I could do to make public a history of a religion which is also part of a country not to go into oblivion. But rather that ageração vindora the better ...rgimo (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Do not delete other editors' comments as you did to my comment that I have restored above.[4] The reason for deleting the article has nothing to do with whether a particular country is "influential".--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep --- This is a modest sized denomination in a reasonably well done article. I added {{WikiProject Africa|class=start|importance=low|Mozambique=yes|Mozambique-importance=low}} {{WikiProject Christianity |class=start|importance=low |jehovah's-witnesses=yes |jehovah's-witnesses-importance=low |core-topics-work-group = yes |core-topics-importance=low}} on the talk page. If kept, it should have that information.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
JWs in Mozambique are an extremely small proportion of JWs globally (0.69%) or of people in Mozambique (0.23%). The broader topic of Jehovah's Witnesses has very good coverage on Wikipedia.
It is not a reasonably well done article. It is based almost entirely on primary sources, including a copyright violation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Jeffro77, the case here is not the TJ in Mozambique is a much lower propotion from the existing worldwide, but the historical legacy that must be transmitted generation to come. It is you already said that this matter was not so equal coverage of Germany in Hitler time. I agree, you know why? After the war the historians speculated the facts ... As already in Mozambique not to fiqui happy to see the description that DW did. Although that in your view that still does not meet the requirement of secondary reference. What about Your comment has been inadvertently excuse!rgimo (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The supposed 'historical legacy' is not sufficiently indicated in reliable secondary sources. That is the only consideration relevant here. Wikipedia should not be used as a soapbox for matters that individual editors believe to be important in the absence of suitable sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The Inspirations[edit]

The Inspirations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Inspirations" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Do not believe this musical group meets GNG or MUSICBIO, apparently they've received some Singing News Fan Awards but don't think that's enough for notability. J04n(talk page) 14:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 18:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 18:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. And I suggest we put the award up for AfD soon. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to Canaan Records for now - @J04n and Walter Görlitz: I found coverage here (Books, includes two 70's Billboard), here (Highbeam) and here (Newspapers Archive) which suggest they have marginal notability locally and in the gospel scene. Throughout my results, the Singing Fan Award is commonly seen; one of the newspapers say they're nationally known and a 2013 book said they were an important group for Canaan Records. If at all, this can support a move to Canaan. SwisterTwister talk 18:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)[edit]

No articles proposed for deletion at this time

Categories for discussion[edit]

Miscellaneous[edit]

  • None currently

References[edit]