Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Christianity. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Christianity|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Christianity

Helaman Jeffs

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating since the last discussion didn't attract much participation. There is no significant coverage at all of the subject. No SNGs apply. Notability is not inherited from family members. C F A 💬 22:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Latter Day Saints, and Arizona. C F A 💬 22:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Fatima College (Port Harcourt)

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

Just one single source. No other source to proof notability. 7G🍁 (🪓) 14:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Schools, and Nigeria. 7G🍁 (🪓) 14:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Alma (numismatist)

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted as WP:Articles for deletion/Blake Alma (TV Host) and in the first nomination, and salted as Blake Alma. WP:REFBOMBED with unreliable sources, quotes, passing mentions, etc. with very little actual significant coverage cited.

(Not tagging for speedy deletion because it's been several years so things could plausibly have changed. But the refs here fail to convince me they have) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And let's titleblacklist .*blake.*alma once this is closed as delete so we can finally stop this campaign or whatever. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Radio, Television, Christianity, Florida, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article as provided demonstrates significant developments in Blake Alma's notability since the 2018 deletion. The sources cited, particularly WCPO (a major Cincinnati ABC affiliate), K-Love (a nationally syndicated radio network), and multiple Cincinnati Enquirer archive pieces, offer substantial, independent coverage that extends well beyond passing mentions or quotes.

These are not unreliable sources or self-promotion; they are established, reputable media outlets providing significant coverage of Alma's work and impact. The WCPO and Cincinnati Enquirer pieces offer in-depth reporting on Alma's activities and influence in the outdoor and conservation spheres.

This is not a case of WP:REFBOMBING. Each source included provides meaningful, substantial coverage. A thorough review of these sources, paying close attention to the depth of coverage and the independence of the reporting, is warranted.

The current body of coverage, coming from established and independent media outlets, meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. The subject has clearly gained significant attention since the previous AfD, justifying a reevaluation of his notability status. If there are specific concerns about any of the sources or their content, they should be addressed individually rather than dismissing the article outright. Delawaretallman (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed breakdown...I totally agree! I put a lot of effort into this article and it's great to see someone else recognizing how Alma's profile has grown since the other deletion which I wasn't aware of until a live admin told me. Those sources really do show he's become noteworthy for this page. Thanks @Delawaretallman Coincollector4500 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. Upon further review, some of the data in media coverage seems slightly like a form WP:REFBOMBING however, if cleaned up you should be just fine. Just use the secondary and primary sources that are in-depth. @Coincollector4500 Good luck! Delawaretallman (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, you quoted him on a religious statement from seemingly a personal social media account as the last source. I'd suggest you'd find that on a public account or another source. Looks like the K-Love article also quoted from that video so I suggest using that as the source. Delawaretallman (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scars to Prove It

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Bastun has nominated nine Remedy Drive albums for deletion, all with the same non-descriptive rationale copy/pasted into each: "Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV." (The first nomination has slightly different syntax.) There is no evidence that a WP:BEFORE search, specific to each album, was done before this mass copy/paste operation. Some of the album articles have citations to reliable sources in the Christian music media, though others could be redirected to the band's article. That's already more variable evidence then given in these mass nominations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - not sure what you mean by "non-descriptive"? It's accurate. The albums have all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTAPOLICY. You should indicate why and how those policies were violated in the original nomination. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I literally did that? Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV is clear, unambiguous and identifies the policies breached. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems good enough. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(I spread pro-Weezer propaganda)} 13:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD is depressing. Vague nominations combatted by vague stances. Come on, do better. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There's a bit more on this one too. As I said on the nomination for Imago Amor, the reviews that are present are the usual weak/blog-esque Christian music sources, but it's an indication there is more coverage out there. Ss112 08:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imago Amor

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The reviews that are present are the usual weak/blog-esque Christian music sources, but it's an indication there is more coverage out there. Ss112 08:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has multiple reviews in reliable sources already present in the article as determined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Living Room Anthology, Vol. 1

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Remedy Drive per nomination. Lacks significant coverage and isn't notable, like the majority of the band's albums. There isn't even a Jesus Freak Hideout revie for this one. Ss112 07:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. Fails WP:NALBUM DonaldD23 talk to me 18:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The North Star (album)

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Similarly to Imago Amor, the reviews that are present are the usual weak/blog-esque Christian music sources, but it's an indication there is more coverage out there. Ss112 12:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is sufficient coverage such as ccmmagazine and jesusfreakhideout . Drushrush (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has multiple reviews in reliable sources already present in the article, as determined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope's Not Giving Up

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Remedy Drive per nomination. Lacks significant coverage and isn't notable, like the majority of the band's albums. Ss112 07:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Light Makes a Way

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Remedy Drive per nomination. Lacks significant coverage and isn't notable, like the majority of the band's albums. A lot of these articles seem to exist under the premise that Christian outlet Jesus Freak Hideout reviewing the release makes it notable—it doesn't. Ss112 07:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magnify (Remedy Drive album)

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Remedy Drive per nomination. Lacks significant coverage and isn't notable, like the majority of the band's albums. A lot of these articles seem to exist under the premise that Christian outlet Jesus Freak Hideout reviewing the release makes it notable—it doesn't. Ss112 07:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Michael Moses

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

Notability unclear from sources in article. The news articles containing him are articles written about stories he was involved in as matters of Catholic interest, but do not show that he himself is notable. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 20:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:RELPEOPLE. Also, there are enough WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. The article is net positively good, and I don't need to do a source search. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does it meet WP:RELPEOPLE? He is not a head of a major religion; he has not played an important role in a significant religious event that has itself received considerable coverage; has not made contributions to the philosophy of religion; and has not been recognized as an authoritative source on religious matters or writings. Neither is he a bishop or head of a large Protestant congregation. He is an associate pastor.

Most of the coverage including him does not point out or demonstrate his notability as a person. I myself am a Catholic priest who has been mentioned or featured in a few Catholic news articles, but I am in no way notable enough for a Wiki article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 20:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see a WP:GNG pass (and WP:RELPEOPLE doesn't apply here). The closest I can get is two articles from Catholic News Agency (here, here), but we need multiple that are independent of the subject and each other, plus these aren't necessarily WP:SIGCOV of him. The rest of the sources are affiliated or unreliable blog-type sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: Do we all agree to redirect to List of American Catholic priests per WP:ATD? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it would be an appropriate redirect; no one who might be searching for him would be served by a redirection to an incomplete list that couldn't even include him. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 13:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also fail to see the value of redirection as suggested. There are tens of thousands of Catholic priests in the U.S. and only a small fraction of them are notable. Thus, per WP:CSC, the selection criterion for this list is Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia, and Moses would not qualify as not qualifying for a standalone article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV and not passing WP:MUSICBIO. None of the current sources (Catholic News agency reports) are independent of the Church, and I don’t see any secular reviews. If there was a review in either America or similar reliable religious media, that would go far to showing notability. I also don’t see any touring as a musician outside of Eastern Texas/Louisiana. Normally, I’d advocate for keeping or merging such articles - my record on AfD is pretty much on the inclusionist side of religious articles. However, I find myself agreeing with Dclemens1971 as to the lack of utility in a redirect to a larger list. If you find and better sources, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy (The Blue One)

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

Non-notable, no WP:SIGCOV, does not satisfy WP:NMUSIC. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Remedy Drive per nomination. Lacks significant coverage and isn't notable, like the majority of the band's albums. Ss112 07:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rip Open the Skies

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

No claim to notability, no WP:SIGCOV, does not satisfy WP:NMUSIC. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bombworks Records

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

Fails NCORP. The sources satisfactorily verify what's claimed, meaning that certain bands were released through them, but as a company, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. Possible promotional creation based on creator's association with music promoting business. Graywalls (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Graywalls (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Park Presbyterian Church

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

I believe that this church has not existed for a good number of years. I was told that the property at 2712 Victoria Park Avenue had been sold. It is currently the location of Christ Emmanuel Community Church. Google Street View shows this church's signage prominently displayed on the building as long ago as May 2009. PeterR2 (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Christianity. PeterR2 (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy keep.~~ No valid deletion rationale has been offered. Instead we have an WP:OUTOFBUSINESS argument. Notability once gained cannot be lost. This church may not have been notable to begin with (the nominator gives no indication of a WP:BEFORE) but even if it’s not, no policy-based rationale to delete has been advanced. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wasn't aware of that, and assumed that articles about no-longer-existent places got closed down unless they had a sufficient long-term relevance - since articles to which I have contributed have more than once been deleted without adequate reason - notably [David MacIntyre] was replaced by some ephemeral modern hockey player and moved to [David McIntyre (minister)] and then deleted, despite the fact that MacIntyre was an early Principal of an influential college - International Christian College, formerly Bible Training Institute, which lasted over a century and was very well known in evangelical circles in Scotland. Also the page about the Presbyterian Reformed Church (North America) which still exists, and is still mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, was deleted - see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Reformed_Christianity/Article_alerts/Archive_1#AfD PeterR2 (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR2, if you reformat your nomination to address how the subject of the article fails WP:NCHURCH and show evidence of a WP:BEFORE search for potential sources not included in the article, I would reconsider my !vote. (The raising of other deletion discussions is generally irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I'll address them briefly: David McIntyre (minister) was an uncontested WP:PROD, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presbyterian Reformed Church (North America) was closed as soft delete; both can be revived upon request at WP:REFUND, at which point they would have to be brought up at AfD again if editors still think they should be deleted. I can only speak to the latter, which I nominated, because I didn't believe it passed the WP:GNG or WP:NORG, the relevant notability guidelines.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There does not appear to be a church by this name in Canada. Article has no sourcing whatsoever. The only church I find by that name, is in Australia. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you it did exist - I am assuming Victoria Park Presbyterian Church was its local name - it was a congregation of the Associated Presbyterian Churches from their inception in 1989 onwards, having previously been in the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Unfortunately the 2007 Google Street View is of too poor quality to see what any signage may have said! See also An Historical Sketch of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland in North America - it seems likely that the author of that article is not a representative of any of the denominations concerned, though his sympathies obviously lie with the Free Presbyterians. In any case the name is mentioned at Montgomery Library Archives of Westminster Theological Seminary and at various directory sites. PeterR2 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I take your word for that. — Maile (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, it existed [1]. That's not enough to vote either way, but it's real. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant coverage, and my own standards for churches. It might exist, but we can’t write an encyclopedia article around listings and church inside debates. It’s not so old a church building that it’s automatically noted for its historical value. Bearian (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The AfD indeed qualified for a Speedy Keep closure due to the deficient nomination. However, now with two valid Delete !votes, the nomination no longer matters, so I'm relisting this in the hope of additional substantive arguments either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With the speedy mooted, I see no evidence this congregation met GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you see no evidence that it called itself "Victoria Park Presbyterian Church" or that the Associated Presbyterian Churches had a congregation in Toronto? I gave links that demonstrate both above in my reply to Maile. I suspect I would agree in regard to notability, however. PeterR2 (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in google news or books, which is unusual for a Canadian entity. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kingsley Okonkwo

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

An article about a "family life and relationship coach, TV personality, and author" sourced entirely to shady pieces. While most of the publications are reliable on their own, the pieces sourced to are either unreliable, of the subject's opinion, run of the mill coverages or vanispamcruft. It's either the subject is publishing their opinion or it's an unreliable "things you need to know about X" piece. Nothing to confer inherent notability here either. Fails WP:GNG over all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lorgius

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

Tagged uncited for years and I could not find much in Google Scolar Chidgk1 (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People venerated as saints by major churches are clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This pre-Vatican martyr never came through a formal Canonization process. All the the sources about him are literally a word or two. I’m not even sure if he really existed. There’s no evidence of a cultus. Bearian (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's quite probable he didn't exist, but that's not unusual for early Christian saints, few of whom ever went through a formal canonisation process. It's whether he's venerated that's significant, and he clearly is, even if not that commonly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lorgius (Lorgio in Italian, or "San Lorgio" which works as a search term for him) is certainly a venerated saint, with churches named after him. Multiple sources exist supporting this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better Days (Robbie Seay Band album)

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

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

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

Articles about albums, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NALBUMS. As usual, Wikipedia's approach to albums used to extend an automatic presumption of notability to any album that was recorded by a notable artist regardless of sourcing or the lack thereof, in the name of completionist directoryism -- but that's long since been deprecated, and an album now has to have a meaningful notability claim (chart success, notable music awards, a significant volume of coverage and analysis about it, etc.) and WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to support it.
But none of these three albums are making any notability claim above and beyond "this is an album that exists", two of the three are completely unreferenced, and the one that does have references doesn't have good ones: it's citing one review in an unreliable source, and one "Billboard chart history" that lists no actual chart positions and is present only to footnote a release date that it doesn't actually support rather than any charting claims.
As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much more expertise in Christian music than I've got can find the right kind of sourcing to salvage them, but simply existing isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt an album from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to see some participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robbie Seay Band, all 3 fail WP:NALBUM. मल्ल (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No RS for information presented. None located. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lilia Tarawa

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

WP:BLP1E only notable in regards to Gloriavale. Most of the stuff not in regards to Gloriavale are from promotional pieces and Tarawa herself. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources are neither reliable nor independent. They are full of primary sources written by the subject or from unreliable blogs. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough here to show GNG. She's written a book that Martin van Beynen has called "bestselling". It created a lot of publicity, for example, John Campbell interviewed her for 10 min on Radio New Zealand. She gets keynote speaking slots and, whilst that's nothing unusual, it is unusual when Stuff reports on that. She's been invited to give a talk at TEDxChristchurch and it takes quite something to get invited to TEDx. The pieces by Kurt Bayer (NZHerald; based in Christchurch), Eleanor Black (Stuff), and Now to Love (which belongs to Are Media) go into plenty enough depth to fulfil the criteria of three independent reliable sources. And all those sources are in the article already. All up, that's an easy keep. Schwede 66 04:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Waikato Times piece is a promotional piece for the business awards. The Now to Love piece is just her interview with Women's Daily. The other Stuff piece is also a promotional piece.

This is the same for most of the refs, they're either promo pieces or interviews about Gloriavale. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of media coverage from reliable outlets here to establish GNG. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of media coverage but it is promotional/non-independent.

Refs 1-4 are Tarawa herself, they shouldn't be used in the article except in limited aboutself uses, let alone go to notability.

Ref 5, supplied piece from the festival she appeared at.

Ref 6, women's day interview

Ref 7 is about Cooper's conviction and just drops a promotion for her book in it... which is odd. Bit of coverage here but not much and it is still in relation to Gloriavale.

Ref 8 same coverage but more blatantly promotional this time

Refs 9 and 10 have the exact same wording as refs 7 and 8 which makes me believe this is some promotional thing sent out to papers, that or they just simply copied the Herald, either way the refs adds nothing to notability.

Ref 11 is a promotional piece.

Ref 12 is a promotional interview

Ref 13 is an interview

Ref 14 is another interview that involves promoting the book

Refs 15-16 are reprints of Herald refs mentioned earlier

Ref 17 uses same wording as the other promotional pieces

Ref 18 is a promotional interview

Ref 19 is a promotional interview from women's day and the same ref as 6.

Ref 20 isn't promotional or an interview but very brief coverage (3 lines) as part of her grandfather's death

Ref 21 is an interview

Ref 22 is from Tarawa herself

Ref 23 is a promotional piece for the Matamata business awards

Ref 24 is a broken url but it is a very brief interview

Refs 25-27 are interviews

Ref 28 is promotional

Ref 29 opinion piece and it provides little coverage anyhow

Ref 30 is brief coverage of the book

Ref 31 is dead but appears to be a blog from an unreliable source

Ref 32 is about someone else's death

Ref 33 is the exact same as ref 32.

Ref 34 is the same as 9, 9 is presumably a reprint of it. Contains the exact same sentences used in the other promotional pieces

Ref 35 is about Gloriavale but suddenly just drops in the same promotional content about Tarawa's book seen before.

Ref 36 is a radio interview, not even an RS.

Ref 37 is a podcast interview.

Ref 38 is a promotional piece for some event she was invited to

Ref 39 is another piece on Gloriavale that just suddenly includes the same promotional content as else where, it is really odd and I cannot see a reason for it other than being sponsored/paid for it

So yes, there is a lot of media coverage, but little of it is independent, most of it is from the same source, and plenty of it is promotional. The fact that two identical articles are used as a reference right after each other just looks like COI/Paid editing with refbombing so it looks notable. The user who wrote most of this article is now blocked for copyvios but from looking at his contributions I think he may have been a paid editor. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schwede66.-Gadfium (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~, or maybe easier, rescope (retitle) the article to represent coverage of her book. [On reflection, “delete” doesn’t accurately represent my opinion, and I am neutral. 23:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)] None of the sources appear to be doing any fact-checking, and are covering her story as though it were independent reporting, so functionally what they are covering is her story, and most closely her book. Ultimately, media coverage of her herself most resembles something like coverage WP:VICTIM, where as an individual she isn’t that notable, but for the fact that she was the centre of some event, and then wrote it all down and sold the story. Reading that guideline: Outside of her book, or her story, obviously there isn’t some higher-level event-centred article to incorporate her into, and so if we are to just keep the article as is (not an absolutely awful outcome, per my “weak” !vote), her testimony, which should have lead to an article about her own life and experiences, just becomes a page about her. Not optimal, given how much we have to rely on her as primary sourcing, but there is clearly secondary reporting on her talking about her story/book. — HTGS (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there consensus to delete or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very promotional, nothing relevant apart from being a speaker. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC) Striking sock !vote. Daniel (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VICTIM. Since an article about the Gloriavale Christian Community already exists, there's no need for a separate one about one of the victims. The references are also questionable: too many primary and promotional sources. DesiMoore (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : This is about her book, in a RS [2], but the rest of the coverage doesn't come in RS, so I'm not sure we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also a review here [3], should meet AUTHOR with two book reviews in RS, on different continents. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the review...? It is an extract from the book written by Tarawa herself. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong link. It's discussed here [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed here, not at length [5], this is a good review also [6]. With the Herald and the NZ Review of Books, that should be AUTHOR notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the book is notable but I still see an issue with a lack of independent/non-promotional sources to be able to write an article about the subject. An article about the book with a basic ABOUTSELF about Tarawa might be better. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand is a rather small media market, other than the Guardian, it's all local coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got the two book reviews that talk about the person and the ton of secondary coverage, we can build an article about this person with that. She's a notable author with a decently reviewed book and a story about her life can be built. AUTHOR doesn't have a two book minimum requirement, once you're notable, you're notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 'ton of secondary coverage' is largely all promotional pieces with many just quoting the same press-release they've been given. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

which is fine once notability has been established, that's how we flesh out articles. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not suggesting that the promotional pieces should be used as sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As proof she's spoken at TedX and that she's on a book tour, they're fine. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, there is absolutely zero chance that Tarawa passes WP:AUTHOR as a subject-specific notability guideline on any of its four criteria. — HTGS (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG as outlined by others above. Paora (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per referenced WP:GNG. I also tried to cleanup some of the non-significant or primary source references as well, probably more work to go. CaptainAngus (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG.--IdiotSavant (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Categories for discussion

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity

Contents

Christianity

Helaman Jeffs

Our Lady of Fatima College (Port Harcourt)

Blake Alma (numismatist)

Scars to Prove It

Imago Amor

Living Room Anthology, Vol. 1

The North Star (album)

Hope's Not Giving Up

Light Makes a Way

Magnify (Remedy Drive album)

David Michael Moses

Remedy (The Blue One)

Rip Open the Skies

Bombworks Records

Victoria Park Presbyterian Church

Kingsley Okonkwo

Lorgius

Better Days (Robbie Seay Band album)

Lilia Tarawa

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Categories for discussion

Miscellaneous