Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

Welcome to the Christianity Noticeboard This page serves to coordinate the various discussions taking place throughout the Christianity-related project talkpages. Even though , there are numerous Christianity-related projects, with many different conversations going on at the same time. This Noticeboard hopes to achieve some kind of order in keeping track of the various goings-on. You are welcome to add to the discussion.

Recent changes of Christianity-related talkpages

List of abbreviations (help):

D: Edit made at Wikidata
r: Edit flagged by ORES
N: New page
m: Minor edit
b: Bot edit
(±123): Page byte size change

12 September 2024

diffhist Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism‎ 17:51 +396‎ ‎Asukite talk contribs‎ (Notifying of requested move using Move+)

Alerts for Christianity-related articles

Today's featured article requests

10 Nov 2024 – Justus (talk · edit · hist) has been proposed for Today's Featured Article by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion

Did you know

04 Sep 2024 – Bernlef (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by ThaesOfereode (t · c); see discussion
30 Aug 2024 – AdventHealth Daytona Beach (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Catfurball (t · c); see discussion
30 Aug 2024 – Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Bobby Cohn (t · c); see discussion
29 Aug 2024 – The Book of Longings (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Orchastrattor (t · c); see discussion
29 Jul 2024 – Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1 (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Stephen Walch (t · c); see discussion

Articles for deletion

10 Sep 2024 – Almohad conquest of Evora (1191) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Javext (t · c); see discussion (3 participants)
09 Sep 2024 – Public image of Mother Teresa (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Polygnotus (t · c); see discussion (5 participants)
09 Sep 2024 – Presbyterian Church in Korea (BoSuHapDong III.) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Walsh90210 (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
08 Sep 2024 – List of pievi (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Daask (t · c); see discussion (3 participants)
08 Sep 2024 – Bishop Wilkins College (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Toweli (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
07 Sep 2024 – Deborah Paul-Enenche (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Star Mississippi (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
07 Sep 2024 – Carleton House Preparatory School (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Clovermoss (t · c); see discussion (5 participants)
07 Sep 2024 – List of Old Newingtonians awarded Imperial and Australian honours (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Clarityfiend (t · c); see discussion (6 participants)
07 Sep 2024 – List of Old Newingtonians with Australian Dictionary of Biography biographies (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Clarityfiend (t · c); see discussion (6 participants)
01 Sep 2024 – Big Church Festival (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Voorts (t · c); see discussion (4 participants; relisted)

(10 more...)

Proposed deletions

06 Sep 2024 – Almohad conquest of Evora (1191) (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Javext (t · c) and endorsed by Srnec (t · c) on 06 Sep 2024 was redirected to Almohad campaign against Portugal (1190–1191) (talk · edit · hist)

Categories for discussion

12 Sep 2024 – Category:Films about LGBT and Christianity (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by BlasterOfHouses (t · c); see discussion
12 Sep 2024 – Category:Documentary films about LGBT and Christianity (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by BlasterOfHouses (t · c); see discussion
11 Sep 2024 – Category:Anti-LGBT Christian organizations (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by BlasterOfHouses (t · c); see discussion

Redirects for discussion

12 Sep 2024 – God of the Old Testament (talk · edit · hist) →Yahweh was RfDed by Presidentman (t · c); see discussion
11 Sep 2024 – Hkbu (talk · edit · hist) →Hong Kong Baptist University was RfDed by Rusalkii (t · c); see discussion
11 Sep 2024 – Hku (talk · edit · hist) →University of Hong Kong was RfDed by Rusalkii (t · c); see discussion
10 Sep 2024 – Holiday gift (talk · edit · hist) →Christmas gift was RfDed by Hey man im josh (t · c); see discussion
01 Sep 2024 – Dragon facts (talk · edit · hist) →Dragon was RfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion
10 Aug 2024 – Unio personalis (talk · edit · hist) →Prosopon was RfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion
10 Aug 2024 – Personal Union of Christ (talk · edit · hist) →Christology was RfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion
10 Aug 2024 – Personal union of Christ (talk · edit · hist) →Christology was RfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion
10 Aug 2024 – Unio Personalis (talk · edit · hist) →Christology was RfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion
10 Aug 2024 – Unio personalia (talk · edit · hist) →Christology was RfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion

(2 more...)

Files for discussion

07 Sep 2024 – File:Gerhard von Rad.jpg (talk · edit · hist) (on 1, 2) was FfDed by Jlwoodwa (t · c); see discussion

Christianity

Almohad conquest of Evora (1191)

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

Reason: This event never happened. Évora was captured by Portugal in 1165 and was never reconquered by the Muslims, see ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] All the sources I gave are reliable and modern. The user who created this article and a few other people have already debated with me regarding this issue on the talk page of this article and others, for example in the Siege of Silves (1191) and stopped answering my replies after failing to disprove my claims. I will be addressing the sources they provided for this page. The first two don't say anything about this event at all, they only refer to the Almohad campaign of 1191, with 0 mention of Évora. The third citation is simply stating what the chronicler "Ibn Abi Zar" wrote, which is a primary source, so if we follow WP:AGEMATTERS, it cannot be used. I don't really have an explanation for the fourth source, however it contradicts more modern sources, so once again we should resort to WP:AGEMATTERS. The fifth source is similar to the third one, it is simply stating what a chronicler wrote but this time it's a different one, someone by the name of "El Édris". The sixth source does not state anything about this event at all, seems to be a case of WP:OR. The seventh and last source is the exact same scenario as the fifth. It's simply stating what "El Édris" wrote, basically another case of WP:AGEMATTERS. Javext (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Christianity, Islam, and Portugal. Skynxnex (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article adds nothing that cannot be gleaned from its title. And that fact is disputed. Srnec (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: my own searching suggests that this may be an incident of a chronicler accidentally recasting the Reconquest date as a date when the city was taken by a Muslim army. Seeing no modern sources for this supposed Muslim capture of the city in 1165, I would definitely invoke AGEMATTERS as the nom does. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, just a minor correction, it wasn't in 1165, but rather in 1191. Keep up the good work. Javext (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out another thing since I forgot about it. Even in the primary sources they only state that Évora and other cities were captured, maybe a case of sloppy writing or something like that. They give no detail about its conquest so even if it did happen, its just not enough to create a page. Javext (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Barroca, Mário Jorge (2006). "Portugal". In Alan V. Murray (ed.). The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. pp. 979–984.
^ A history of portugal. CUP Archive. 1947-01-19. p. 103.
^ Grande enciclopédia portuguesa e brasileira: ilustrada com cêrca de 15.000 gravuras e 400 estampas a côres (in Portuguese). Editorial Enciclopédia. 1959.
^ Stanislawski, Dan (2014-11-11). The Individuality of Portugal: A Study in Historical-Political Geography. University of Texas Press. p. 175. ISBN 978-1-4773-0509-6.
^ Kaufmann, J. E.; Kaufmann, H. W. (2019-07-30). Castle to Fortress: Medieval to Post-Modern Fortifications in the Lands of the Former Roman Empire. Pen and Sword. ISBN 978-1-5267-3688-8.
^ Fiolhais, Carlos; Franco, José Eduardo; Paiva, José Pedro (2021-12-06). The Global History of Portugal: From Pre-History to the Modern World. Liverpool University Press. ISBN 978-1-80207-133-7.
^ Hyland, Paul (1996). Backwards Out of the Big World: A Voyage Into Portugal. HarperCollins. p. 171. ISBN 978-0-00-255556-2.

List of pievi

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

The contents look like a disambiguation page, yet none of these entries would be known under the name "Pieve" alone, so no disambiguation is required.

The name suggests it's a list of pievi. However, pievi were very numerous, and this list would be woefully incomplete if this is the goal. I don't think it's feasible or necessary for Wikipedia to have a list of pievi.

The descriptions refer to the present-day non-ecclesiastical administrative territorial entities named after these historic no-longer extant and non-notable ecclesiastical administrative territorial entities. A minority of the listed articles do describe the history of the related pievi, eg. Città della Pieve#History and Pieve di Cento#History. Daask (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and Italy. Daask (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An option that I didn't consider in my proposal is a merge to Pieve in a new section "Toponyms", as I see has been done in some other language Wikipedias, eg br:Pieve#Lec'hioù. Daask (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pieve as suggested above by the nominator, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public image of Mother Teresa

Previous AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Criticism of Mother Teresa

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

Started as a WP:POVFORK [1] and since then it has changed quite a bit but it never really improved. This article is not about her public image, which is overwhelmingly positive, (and not a notable topic which does not pass WP:GNG), it is about certain criticisms of her. For some reason the article got moved [2]. Criticism should be in the main article and this POVFORK should be removed. Polygnotus (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Christianity, India, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm COI on this because 1.) a family friend ran some of Mother Teresa's US PR stuff and 2.) Mother Teresa holds special, positive importance in a private element of my life. However, I'm of the opinion that this article, while possibly a bit OR-heavy, strikes me as generally neutral and notable. I can elaborate, but I feel my COI precludes me from seriously inserting myself any further here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: COI users are allowed to have an opinion (even those who disagree with me

). See WP:COIEDIT and WP:COIADVICE. Do you know any reliable sources that are about her public image and not her as a person? Do you think it is a good idea that all criticism was removed from the article about her and moved to this, far more obscure, article? And that, possibly as a result of the move from Criticism of... to Public image of..., the criticism got hidden even further down the page? Polygnotus (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your encouragement to discussion! Perusing JSTOR, I'm finding some pieces like this. Generally, they come from the late 1990s and are heaving on the sociology (not necessarily bad, especially in a subjective subject). I have objections over centering criticisms like Hitchens's on her biographical article—one of a few significant marks against his legacy—but generally agree that we need to exercise caution in any diminishment of sustained and impactful criticism. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to see how some people are overly cautious with anything approaching COI while others... are not. ;-) Of course, the criticism comes not just from Hitchens. People like Aroup Chatterjee and Tariq Ali and Mihir Bose and even people who worked for her like Hemley Gonzalez and Susan Shields et cetera have famously criticized her work. There are a lot of very important people who said very positive things about her; let's be fair and balance that out with some of the criticism. MLK jr got a criticism section. You can probably write a criticism section for Ghandi. I am quoting myself, and when I wrote that the Mother Teresa article still had a criticism section. No matter what happens here, the criticism will return anyway. It never left, despite attempts to hide it. Polygnotus (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: sorry I forgot to ping. Polygnotus (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critics say grossly inadequate medical care was given to the sick and dying. Syringes were reused without sterilisation, pain relief was non-existent or negligible, and conditions were unhygienic. Meanwhile, Mother Teresa spent much of her time travelling around the world in a private plane to meet political leaders. -- The Guardian. Polygnotus (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at WP:SIZESPLIT, over 9000 words means "Probably should be divided or trimmed". The main article currently got only 5000 words. I flipped it around. If it would be fair then that shouldn't matter, right? But it does cause it isn't.

Finally, how competent are the sisters at managing pain? On a short visit, I could not judge the power of the spiritual approach, but I was disturbed to learn the formulary includes no strong analgesics. Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Teresa's approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement. I know which I prefer.' Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet from 1990 to 1995. PMID: 7818649 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(94)92353-1 Polygnotus (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: I still feel too COI to formally !vote, but you've convinced me. I now favor deletion. Thanks for your comments. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was previously nominated for deletion on August 2023. The article's current title came as a result of that discussion. I was the one who removed the criticism section but I retained the criticism against her since it would be a violation of NPOV to remove it. You do not need such a section to include criticism about a person. The NPOV policy discourages such sections anyway. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or merge - clear WP:POVFORK, and the lack of criticism in the main article is now notable by its absence. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Church in Korea (BoSuHapDong III.)

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

A follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korea Jesus Presbyterian Church with a single page nominated rather than a bundle.

Bosu Hapdong (Korean: 보수합동) translates as "Conservative Union". The only source is a database of Church denominations, which "did not manage to contact this church". This is insufficient sourcing to keep this as an article.

Furthermore, the title is mangled with an unnecessary . character, and the Roman Numeral may be an invention of reformiert-online. Korean Wikipedia does not have an article on this; a cursory search in Korean did not find an immediate result for (or about) any group of this name.

For a potential redirect, it is unclear what the target would be: Presbyterian Church of Korea, Presbyterianism in South Korea, or a new page. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and South Korea. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Presbyterianism in South Korea. seefooddiet (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Wilkins College

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

The subject doesn't appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia. toweli (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Christianity, United Kingdom, England, and Wales. toweli (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 14:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only the lack of WP:SIGCOV and the fact that there is not a single source cited in the article, I found little to prove widespread, independent secondary coverage. GuardianH (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carleton House Preparatory School

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

Promotional article that does not appear to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: While I'm not finding any immediate sources (only did a Google search), this school is definitely around 50 years old (UK incorporation documentation). Given that this article was nominated for deletion the same day it was created, I favor draftification and looking into possible references. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Listings like this one from The Sunday Times are notable enough to count towards the RS coverage total of the GNG. Will keep looking, as I'm about 50/50 on whether this could work as an article. Might scrounge around some architecture books and see if anyone finds that element particularly notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I can't read that source in its entirety as it is paywalled but "School league tables: the best UK primary and secondary schools revealed" as a title does not give me confidence that this is actually significant coverage of the school itself. Rankings usually aren't. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It isn't SIGCOV, but multiple listings in notable rankings is another avenue towards notability described by NORG. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Where does NORG say that? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Footnote 2, WP:ORGTRIV. Presumptive notability is a rare thing, but this might clear that through inclusion on such listings. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That footnote says If the list itself is notable, such as the Fortune 500 and the Michelin Guide, the inclusion counts like any other reliable source, but it does not exempt the article from the normal value of providing evidence that independent sources discuss the subject. I don't think that is met here. Unless you can prove that this newspaper's ranking of primary schools is notable in itself? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  We're going a bit off-topic (which is fine for me; I'm not super concerned about this article but now I kinda on a kick seeing how UK schools are ranked). Looking into it, The Times's school rankings may themselves clear GNG. See [3], [4], [5]. Their rankings seem to be a standard. Again, off topic, but maybe something for me to consider looking into as a potential article sometime in the future. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The reason I created the article was due to the Schools inclusion in a number of articles by UK News Outlets about the continued success of the school, with it earning the title and reputation in the Liverpool region for "the best institution for primary education in Merseyside" https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/best-primary-schools-merseyside-ranked-22404373 this coupled with it being featured nationally in the times schools of the year rankings. The decision to create it an article also stems from the history the schools establishment is the continuation of Woolton Hall Preparatory School, part of the history of Woolton Hall. I would also like to state that it has only been a matter of hours since the articles creation, and I believe it would be more prudent to expand the third party sourcing of this school's article rather then deleting it. I would also like to advise that it does not fall under a for-profit school due to its establishment as a registered charity for providing a school upholding the catholic faith, UK Gov Charity registration number will be added to the article to greater clarify this. Knowledgework69 (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is if you can provide three reliable and independent sources that have WP:SIGCOV about the school. Wikipedia has certain guidelines for inclusion, so school rankings by themselves aren't really what I'm looking for. An AfD lasts at least 7 days so there is no need to rush. But I did not find the sourcing I was hoping to find when I looked. Drafts cannot overcome notability concerns and aren't supposed to be a backdoor to deletion, so I figured it'd be worth raising the matter now. I'm not unreasonable as long as you can provide that sourcing, I'd withdraw. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, totally understand I am trying to look through articles now bare with. Knowledgework69 (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

more sources pertaining to history and charity and constitution added Knowledgework69 (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a further point to the schools notability https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/junior-sport/carleton-house-reach-finals-3509155 for sporting success it has competed successfully at the highest level of Junior School sports in England, which was reported on in news articles Knowledgework69 (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I need to prove the school's notability. I need significant coverage. Can you find sources that meet what's described there? I haven't been able to yet. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The School was featured in two books published in 2022 and 2023 respectively information pertaining to them can now be found on the article under the School section. Knowledgework69 (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A children's book featuring the school's mascot is not SIGCOV about the school itself. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you can overcome the notability hurdle, there's still the promotional issue. The entire lede consists of promotional items not discussed elsewhere in the article. A lede for a school article should include the town and political division where the school is located; the name of the lowest level administrative authority that controls it, and a brief summary of the high points of the rest of the article. Also, you should arrange the sections of the article as outlined at WP:WPSCH/AG. Further, there is a bunch of flowery language scattered throughout the article. A good rule of thumb is, you cannot say anything either good or bad about the school in Wikipedia's voice. You need to directly quote a reliable secondary source that is completely independent of the school. I'd lean towards draftifying the article to give the author time to work on all the issues. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I found four reliable sources in this article with significant coverage:

There are three additional sources on two books about the school's mascot and school motto, ‘They Can Because They Think They Can’:

However, the text in the History section needs to be re-worked, preferably using chronological order and a simplified narrative. It would be useful to differentiate between the history of the buildings the school has occupied from the various iterations of the school's title and organization. Primary schools seldom meet the referencing requirements of WP:GNG, but this one now does, thanks to WP:HEY effort of Knowledgework69. It's kind of like a diamond in the rough... it just needs some polishing now. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, and I agree with your suggestion to differentiate between the history of Beechenhurst House and Woolton Hall, and of the School Knowledgework69 (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Paul-Enenche

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

A ministry's creative director provides no inherent notability nor grounds for a redirect thereto, and she was covered for some passing stories around her wedding, but sourcing is mostly unsubstantial and inappropriate for a BLP. Should this close as a redirect, suggest protection as it will only be re-created. Star Mississippi 19:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Christianity, and Nigeria. Star Mississippi 19:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Church Festival

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

I boldy merged this article over a year ago, but just noticed that my redirect was reverted in October. This festival fails WP:NCONCERT/WP:NCORP (which I think applies because this is a non-profit festival, i.e., an organization that puts on an event once a year). I have been unable to find sustained, in-depth coverage of the festival. As there is still merged content in Christian music festival#Worldwide, I propose restoring the redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Religion, Christianity, and United Kingdom. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be be enough coverage to warrant the page to be kept and improved on. cyberdog958^Talk 02:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not count Event Industry News toward notability; per WP:TRADES, there's a presumption against using industry trade publications to establish notability. Christian Today and Cross Rhythms are both from 2015, hence why I noted this event lacks sustained coverage. Those are the only sources with SIGCOV I could find; the rest of the coverage I've been able to find are routine announcements that particular bands are performing at the event. In sum, two reviews from 2015 isn't enough to establish notability in my view. Cross Rhythms is also an interview with the founder, which means it lacks independence. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per the Christianity Today piece and the Cross Rhythms piece which has a significant coverage prose introduction before the interview part, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional. Irrelevant. with hardly any reliable or independent references--Alon9393 (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant is a personal opinion not a notability factor and promotionalism can be edited out, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Van Bik

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

A (very interesting) article about a Bible translator that unfortunately fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO for lack of WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. The two main sources for the article are both WP:SPS and thus prima facie unreliable. One is a collection of remembrances by Van Bik's friend; the other is a self-published (Xulon Press) book by a close friend of Van Bik and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing else of use. Don't see a valid redirect target. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bible, Christianity, and Myanmar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a bit of a stretch, but per ANYBIO #2 The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, I'm seeing him referenced briefly in the academic missiological literature as a translator:
"This was followed by David Van Bik and Robert G. Johnson’s translation of the Old Testament, published by United Bible Society through BSI in 1978" in Haokip, D.L. (2020). "Bible Translation in Kuki-Chin of Indo-Myanmar and Bangladesh: A Historical Analysis." In: Behera, M. (eds) Tribal Studies in India. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9026-6_7

"More Chin students, including well-known Chin Bible translators, David Van Bik and Stephen Hre Kio, came and studied in the United States afterward." in Mang, P. Z. (2023). Chin Diaspora Christianity in the United States. Theology Today, 80(2), 173-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/00405736231172682 Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it seems like a stretch... there are a lot of people who work as Bible translators in the world's many languages, and I don't know that these brief references constitute a "widely recognized contribution." The second reference claims him to be "well known" but the rest of the sourcing doesn't validate that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Taking a cursory look at the article, the source formatting is impressive and I initially believed that the subject was undoubtedly noteworthy. But looking at a sources a bit more reveals how narrow and superficial they are. The article's sources all come from just one book. Looking just at the PDF of the book reveals some serious problems (besides the fact that it is written in, yes, Comic Sans). First of all, the book seems to be self-published, which immediately excludes it as a reliable source per WP:RSSELF. The article also takes some of the exaggerated claims in the book as fact when it should not. Looking at [6] it looks like a WP:BLOG. It goes without saying that the article is sort of a mess, and its sources are no different. The subject fails the widespread, independent secondary sources usually required for notability. GuardianH (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article's sources all come from just one book is not a correct statement. The majority of the sources do, including quoting separate chapter authors so it seems more diverse than it is, but not all sources come from that book. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--> Correction: yes, I meant to say most sources, rather than all. GuardianH (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: [7], [8] are some of the better sources. He's mentioned quite a few times in Baptist media in Gbooks. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more [9]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, that "On the Road Back to Mandalay" source you link is discussed in my nomination; it's a WP:SPS from a close friend of Van Bik and thus neither reliable nor independent. The Theology Today source is a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION. (This is the only sentence that mentions him: "More Chin students, including well-known Chin Bible translators, David Van Bik and Stephen Hre Kio, came and studied in the United States afterward.") The Wisconsin Baptist source appears to a similarly trivial mention. I still don't think we have WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Gibson (Christian musician)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jon Gibson (Christian musician) (2nd nomination)

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

I propose this article for deletion because there are many, many, many "sources" but which are often profiles and biographies sometimes written by the artist himself and anonymous users, the sourcing is horrible and it is difficult to find your way around, if the article is eligible it is absolutely necessary to rework the sourcing, I tried to improve it, but... SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also a lot of these "sources" come from databases like AllMusic, are there any press articles or better quality elements? SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have applied {{subst:afd2}} to this nomination, which did not previously have the full AfD formatting. No opinion or comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Military, Christianity, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has had a No.1 hit album and other hits on Billboards Top Christian Albums chart and also has coverage in album reviews on reliable sources such as AllMusic and CrossRythmns. Also this is significant coverage with a byeline here, and also here. The article can be rewritten or shortened but AfD is not for clean-up purposes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Atlantic306, I am not against keeping the article and you may be right about the non-necessity of this Afd, I could not find where I could make this type of request. But in the current state the article should be put back in draft and be republished later when a sorting of sources will be done because the article is hardly clear in the current state SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, although it happens articles older than 6 months are not supposed to be moved to draft so if it is kept it needs to be fixed while in mainspace, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing on this article is a mess. Far, far too many citations to sources that don't help with notability, which makes assessing it very difficult. I have gone through every single reference and found exactly one that in my opinion shows notability: Soultracks bio, which looks like an independent and in-depth biography. Doing a search, I have found: Hot Hits book, a little snippet; Charisma and Christian Life, a frustratingly obscured piece that looks to be mostly about an album but I can't be sure. The second source Atlantic306 has noted is an interview, which cannot contribute to notability (sorry).

In short, based on the sources I could find, delete. It feels like there should be enough RS somewhere out there, but they're not in the article and I can't find enough to say keep. Atlantic306, do you have access to any offline sources that are pushing you towards keep? He seems like he ought to be notable...maybe some of his albums are notable and we could redirect? StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't have access to any offline sources but there are quite a few book results in a google search which I cant assess unfortunately as either its a small snippet given or none at all. Reviews of his music do count towards notability so I would include the reviews on CrossRythmns and on AllMusic (the paragraph ones, not the single sentence ones), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: SparklingBlueMoon, why is this AFD called Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Gibson (Christian musician) (2nd nomination) when there has been no Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Gibson (Christian musician) nor a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Gibson? Why is this the 2nd nomination? Was there a previous AFD under a different page title? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Liz, when I tried to make the nomination manually a message told me that there had already been a result before but it is not impossible that it was an error. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 7 September 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

Miscellaneous

References

[1] Barroca, Mário Jorge (2006). "Portugal". In Alan V. Murray (ed.). The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. pp. 979–984.

[2] A history of portugal. CUP Archive. 1947-01-19. p. 103.

[3] Grande enciclopédia portuguesa e brasileira: ilustrada com cêrca de 15.000 gravuras e 400 estampas a côres (in Portuguese). Editorial Enciclopédia. 1959.

[4] Stanislawski, Dan (2014-11-11). The Individuality of Portugal: A Study in Historical-Political Geography. University of Texas Press. p. 175. ISBN 978-1-4773-0509-6.

[5] Kaufmann, J. E.; Kaufmann, H. W. (2019-07-30). Castle to Fortress: Medieval to Post-Modern Fortifications in the Lands of the Former Roman Empire. Pen and Sword. ISBN 978-1-5267-3688-8.

[6] Fiolhais, Carlos; Franco, José Eduardo; Paiva, José Pedro (2021-12-06). The Global History of Portugal: From Pre-History to the Modern World. Liverpool University Press. ISBN 978-1-80207-133-7.

[7] Hyland, Paul (1996). Backwards Out of the Big World: A Voyage Into Portugal. HarperCollins. p. 171. ISBN 978-0-00-255556-2.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

v t e Christianity-related talkpages noticeboard discussion
Project	Christianity
All talk pages for the following workgroups redirect to the noticeboard discussion page
Workgroups	Anabaptist Baptist Christianity in China Core topics Evangelical Christianity Holiness movement Jesus Methodism Syriac Christianity Theology
Subprojects	Anglicanism Arminianism Bible Biblical criticism Catholicism Canon law Charismatic Christianity Christian films Christian music Southern Gospel Christianity in India Eastern Orthodoxy Holidays Christmas Halloween Jehovah's Witnesses Jewish Christianity Latter Day Saint movement Lutheranism Oriental Orthodoxy Reformed Christianity Religious Society of Friends-Quakers Religious texts Saints Seventh-day Adventist Church Unitarianism and Universalism