Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity
(Redirected from Wikipedia:XNB)
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

22 November 2024

21 November 2024

20 November 2024

19 November 2024


Alerts for Christianity-related articles

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(6 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Good article nominees

Good topic candidates

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(4 more...)

Articles to be split

Articles for creation


Christianity Deletion list


Christianity

edit

Nigel Williams (priest)

edit
Nigel Williams (priest) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Low-level religious figure. Fails WP:BASIC as lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Created by an editor now blocked from mainspace for poor-quality content creation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quick and the dead

edit
The quick and the dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article consists of a dictionary definition, an etymology, and some mentions of its usage, pretty much all of which is original research. If there's any indication that this even counts as a standard phrase, it would do better as a Wiktionary entry. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 14:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf in sheep's clothing

edit
Wolf in sheep's clothing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article consists of etymology better fitting for Wiktionary, loosely thrown together trivia about literature inspired by the phrase, and uses of the phrase to describe the phenomenon of zoological mimicry, which already has its article. None of it is encyclopaedic, all of it can be (and is) better mentioned elsewhere. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 11:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree WP isn't a dictionary but this article has some encyclopedic value. Alexeyevitch(talk) 12:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has encyclopedic value as it's a popular idiomatic expression and this is evident in the average number of article views per month at around eight thousand. It only needs working on to remodel it within the scope of its title. Mekomo (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is a consideration of a large body of literary fables inspired by the original figure of speech. Where I would agree is that the title is unfortunately titled, making the article appear to be focussed on the figure of speech. It might function better if it were rewritten under a composite title like, for example, The wolf in disguise. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is expressly about the phrase, and is titled correctly for that. A separate article on the literary trope might be viable, but this is not that article. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 14:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • okay, I see going back into the history, it was created as an article on the fable. The current pretty much says that the original is incorrect, and the fables aren't by Aesop, but are based on the phrase, not the other way around. The edits have also substantially altered the scope of the article. Would it make sense to change it again to be about the fables, or should a new article be created about the trope (a broader topic)? TryKid [dubious – discuss] 14:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article has encyclopedic value as a widely recognized idiom with significant cultural, historical, and literary relevance. It originates from biblical and fable traditions, and this phrase has transcended its initial context to become a universal metaphor for deception and hidden malevolence. I suggest including more about the cultural and societal implications of this phrase. However, minor issues can be resolved without deleting the entire article. DocZach (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • wikt:wolf in sheep's clothing already records where it originates from; dictionaries also record etymological information. It's use (not origin!) in fable traditions is also akin to myriad art and literature that are often based on this or that phrase, collecting all that on one page on the phrase is essentially trivia. People often use phrases as metaphors, yes, that's what they are for. Collecting a bunch of sources *using* a phrase, without any *mentioning* it, or describing it in more detail than a dictionary definition is not enough for an encyclopaedia. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 14:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the sources seem to be enough to pass WP:GNG. I would also argue that the article is encyclopedic, since as an idiom it warrants more coverage than a mere dictionary entry can provide.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a major topic. It meets GNG the usual way, with multiple, independent, reliable sources. The zoology sources alone demonstrate its notability, but the article goes into much more depth than that on its literary side. It far exceeds a dictionary definition, to put it mildly. Nom argues in this thread that the article is (only) about the phrase, but that is not so: it is about the uses made of the phrase, an encyclopedic subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a WP:DICDEF. Meets WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nosral Recordings

edit
AfDs for this article:
Nosral Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All but one of the sources used for this article have a close affiliation with the subject. The HM story states that a former writer for that publication launched the label, and most of the other coverage is trivial and written by someone closely affiliated with the subject (because they worked for Rottweiler Records). The editor who created it was banned for undisclosed paid editing. A single unaffiliated source (Jesus Wired) is reliable but the coverage of the label itself is trivial.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa

edit
Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to lack notability. I found only one independent reference and it is primary and provides no coverage.

I also nominating the episcopal units: Te Pīhopatanga o Te Upoko o Te Ika, Te Pīhopatanga o Manawa o Te Wheke Te Pīhopatanga o Te Tai Tokerau Te Pīhopatanga o Te Waipounamu Te Pīhopatanga o Te Tairāwhiti Traumnovelle (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Lutheran School

edit
AfDs for this article:
Wisconsin Lutheran School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL: nothing special about this elementary school. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:NSCHOOL. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. John Vianney Roman Catholic Primary School

edit
St. John Vianney Roman Catholic Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL: nothing special about this elementary school. Other than that, it has no sources. Jinnllee90 (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony of Heaven

edit
Symphony of Heaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The more you look at sources, the more notability seems to be lacking. Many are based on band members' own words via interviews. Some other sources include articles written by band members themselves. Once you see past the notability mask smoke screen, the notability of this band appears quite thin and below meeting GNG. Also, the article was created by an undisclosed paid editing user. That editor appears to have a COI with this article. Graywalls (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a situation I've occasionally come across where an album might be more notable than a band. Season of Death has some significant coverage from HM, The Metal Resource, and Teeth of the Divine. That last one is currently being discussed at the reliable sources notice board. I noticed the review is written by the site owner, which would mean that it can't be used for any biographical statements. The site owner is a reputable music journalist, so that does confer notability to the album. however, apart from the album reviews, most of the other stuff I'm seeing is either press release copy, interviews from unreliable or self-published sources (which are fine for verifiable statements about the band but not for establishing notability), or COI sources (The Metal Onslaught and Indie Vision Music). I am leaning toward merge with Season of Death.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per discussion with Graywalls below, I agree that this does not need to merge with one of the albums. So in that case, delete--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ABOUTSELF. "unduly self serving" is often black and white, but there's grey area in some cases.
For example, "first luxury boutique hotel in town" citing the hotel's page or "a 100,000 lumen flash light released in 2024" citing the manufacturer's website of a light sold for $10 on Amazon. The former is fluffing, the latter is likely objectively inaccurate. However, citing the hotel's page "is a hotel in town xxx" or the flashlight's manufacturer's as "a flashlight release in 2024" would pass for factual accuracy. In 99.99% of cases, that flashlight's page has no place being cited or mentioned AT ALL on Wikipedia though. I think WP:RS is a concept unique to Wikipedia. Much of the sources in Symphony of Heaven don't substantiate inclusion worthiness even if factually accurate. Graywalls (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basic biographical facts and album releases are fine to cite to the subject and those affiliated with the subject. But, if attributable to the subject, they don't give the subject notability. Verifiability isn't the same as notability. The flashlight hypothetical is a hypothetical and isn't relevant here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done)
That merge suggestion appears unsound though. I was only suggesting that be merged INTO this, because Season of Death is one of the many notability failing articles of Symphony of Heaven. So, that being merged into this would be reasonable if this isn't notable, but if they're both non-notable, then deletion is sometimes the sound option. Graywalls (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that I found three independent reliable sources for that album, it's notable--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we had an article on Battery Company Inc, and separate articles on AA, C and D batteries of theirs, merging individual product into the company would make sense if the company is notable, but if we only had sources to make the AA stick, I don't believe that's a right re-direct target. That's the situation we have here. Graywalls (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your analogy. The album is notable. The band is not (or barely is).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make much of a sense to merge the band into an album for the sake of saving cruft from a non-notable band. Their other non-notable albums would then re-direct, rather than merge into one of the albums. Though, my order of preerence would be Del->redir->m erge. There are three other albums, so this would be a situation where there's really no appropriate singular re-direct target. Like I said, it's like re-directing a non-notable battery company into their marginally notable "non-notable comany's AA battery" while there's an article each in existence for each of the company's battery size. As you can see, this is an illogical target. Graywalls (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I follow now. Yes, I suppose I agree.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Salle Secondary School, Kota Kinabalu

edit
La Salle Secondary School, Kota Kinabalu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Salle School, Petaling Jaya

edit
La Salle School, Petaling Jaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Salle School, Klang

edit
La Salle School, Klang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convent Taiping

edit
Convent Taiping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Thomas Church, Nalukody

edit
St Thomas Church, Nalukody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After doing WP:BEFORE, I cannot find any evidence of WP:SIGCOV or notability. Grahaml35 (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dachuna

edit
Dachuna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

contested PROD. a female Cornish Dachuna is only known from one singular mention by Hugh Candidus in a list of saints' resting places. i checked the Blair source as i have irl access to it, and the heading is "Summary list of late, non-English, or dubious saints who appear in the resting-place lists". according to Nicholas Orme's Saints of Cornwall,

The reference is presumably to Bodmin Priory, but no evidence survives from there about these saints, apart from Petroc. ... Dachuna is equally elusive in Cornwall, and a similar name in Ireland is male not female. ... In short, there is no certain Cornish context for these names; perhaps Hugh Candidus or his source conflated two places and ascribed saints to Bodmin who rightly belonged elsewhere.

there is no evidence that a female Cornish Dachuna ever existed. she is only known from one very dubious passing mention in a medieval source. fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Some of nominator's reasoning/historical commentary is a bit misguided, a lot of prominent subjects rely on a single source, Beowulf for instance is arguably one of those. Whether the saint itself ever existed as a person, who knows, but the cult did; like arguing Zeus didn't exist so the god's article should be deleted. Even the nomination shows that the subject is of scholarly interest. The saint's cult and commemoration are recorded in one of the major sources of information we have for early English saints. The article is a stub and needs more work, but that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable either. Ironically if the nominator had expended the same energy expanding the article as trying to get it deleted it might not be a stub, some of the info used above could be in the article in expounded form. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's not what i'm saying, and is entirely beside the point. there is nothing to add to this article, and there is no evidence beyond Hugh Candidus' brief mention that she existed and was buried at Bodmin, let alone that she had a cult or commemoration - scholarly sources, including the one you cited in the article, agree on that. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's not what i'm saying I don't know specifically what 'that' means here, but everything I've said addresses the points you've raised. there is nothing to add to this article How do you know what can be added to the article? Your reasoning is misguided, just because there is only one source doesn't mean there is nothing more to be said. It's also clearly wrong as a statement, you could have added the quote above to the article, for instance, instead of using it here. Again, misspent effort. An established, culted medieval saint is intrinsically notable and there will be more scholarship, either material existing but unused or in the future. I find the logic and motivation here alarming, you would clear out so many important articles on Wikipedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is not an "established, culted medieval saint". that is what the very sparse sourcing says - that this was probably a mistake on Hugh's part. and i know that there is nothing to add because i've looked for good sourcing on this saint, and have come up very short. Dachuna does not even have her own entry in the very, very thorough and authoritative Orme book, nor does she have any dedications, known feast days, or folklore. the only thing we know about this supposed saint is where she was supposedly buried, from one singular passing mention. please do not speculate about my motivations, either. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful if people here who aren't historians stop commenting on the historicity of the saint, you don't know what you are talking about. Because a commentator speculates that it might be a mistake by Hugh, that's not the last word, we do not have satisfactory let alone exhaustive source coverage of religion in 12th century Cornwall. Also if you did have any kind of expertise on Insular saints cults you'd know that they frequently spawn dopplegangers, gender changes, etc, etc, doesn't mean they are not notable. St Kentigern of Glasgow was likely a gender change, St Ninian of Whithorn is likely a doppleganger/invention (based on recent scholarship). Also, you've made your motivation clear, you are posting here because you want this deleted, right, what's there for me to 'speculate' about? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Deacon of Pndapetzim, can you give us your WP:THREE best sources that would show that the subject meets the notability guidelines at WP:GNG? That would help bring this discussion back on track. -- asilvering (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hugh Candidus and add mention of these dubious saints there as an AtD. (edit conflict) I concur with Sawyer's assessment here that a full article on an almost certainly non-existent saint should not warrant an article when coverage has been so sparse and exclusively focused on the likely falsity of the original claim. However, saint articles have a tendency to reappear due to the general assumption of notability many editors believe they have. A redirect that indicates the spurious origin may stave off any misguided efforts to revive the page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful if people here who aren't historians stop commenting on the historicity of the saint, neither of you know what you are talking about. I don't mean to sound patronising, but the source problems here and the historical issues surrounding the evolution of saints cults are very complex. Also, why would you redirect it to Hugh Candidus? Surely if you were going to delete it you'd just redirect it to List of Cornish saints or List of Anglo-Saxon saints?Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should say that, as I am a historian. You have managed to be patronizing and seem to be taking this AfD far too personally. Your redirect suggestions are inappropriate targets due to the unlikely historicity and singular reference of this purported saint. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not taking it personally at all. Why are the redirect suggestions 'inappropriate'? Listen, if you want to call yourself a historian because you did a history degree I'm not going to argue, but my points stands, these issues are specialised and complex, I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings but this is a public encyclopedia used by millions of people and the lack of relevant competence is important....but unfortunately if you don't recognise it yourself pointing it out any further is likely to be a waste of time on my part. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - especially if the information from Orme's Saints of Cornwall is added (which it should be). Yes, it's a sparse article, but that's not exactly unusual in medieval subjects. It is a bit of a borderline case, but yes, there does appear enough for me to consider this worth an article. I do not consider Hugh Candidus a good redirect target - that would imply that Hugh had some connection to this purported saint, where he is just the source. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think it might be worth noting that you were canvassed (diff) for participation in this AfD? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note my reply at Deacon's talk page - here addressing my knowing about this AfD before Deacon posted on my talk page. (I've long had Deacon's TP watchlisted - you might note the yearly Saturnalia posts that date back many years for him (and most everyone else where I have their userpages watchlisted) Ealdgyth (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pbritti, you are approaching this the wrong way, we are people with long-established interests in these articles. Ealdgyth isn't going to be 'canvassed' by anyone, let alone me. When I last checked she was one of the main contributors to articles on English Christianity. 10os articles in which she has an interest could be negatively affected by this selective attempt to impose deletionist maximalism on a relevant article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ealdgyth: Your response is a bit ridiculous when you only !voted here after being canvassed, failed to acknowledge that, and have not !voted in an AfD in over a year (and only five in the last five years). @Deacon of Pndapetzim: you explicitly sought the aid of a friendly editor, which is canvassing. I'll take this up with WP:AN next. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please WP:AGF. I will mention the discussion to anyone I think might be interested, I had no idea if Ealdgyth would agree with me or not, I didn't want this discussion to have no input from knowledgable people & just be me and the two of you. If I'd wanted to perform some wicked evil conspiracy on you I could have emailed her or lots of other people & you wouldn't have had a clue, seriously get a grip . Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the interest of fairness, i have added what little is available from Orme's book. i do not have access to the Jankulak book so i have no idea if there's more information in there. i stand by my nomination for deletion, however; i do not believe this is enough for a standalone article. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Redirect What's in the article right now really looks like, at best, passing mention in a single book. I would suggest that, unless significant improvement can be made to citation quality, there's not enough here to support a separate article. It's never going to be more than a stub. Suggest merging any relevant information into Saint Petroc. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my !vote to redirect. I'm somewhat on the fence about what would be the best redirect target. Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Petroc seems like a reasonable merge/redirect target to me. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A single passing mention is not enough to establish notability, despite some votes based on hypotheticals provided above. You don't need to be a historian, despite what one user claims, to realize that a lack of sources is worth considering. I do not have any objection to a redirect given the provided context. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per ATD, but not to Candidus or S. Petroc—where it would be UNDUE to contain what we have on a discrete saint, but rather to List of Anglo-Saxon saints, where Dachuna already has a slot. A list also created by The Historian™, so please present your diplomas on the door before commenting  :) SerialNumber54129 14:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    didn't realize she already was listed there; i've been working on sorting out the Cornish saints topic, not A-S saints, so i hadn't noticed. i concur that that's probably the best redirect target ... sawyer * he/they * talk 14:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Serial Number 54129 has raised a good question about whether Dachuna's origin there should be "British", "Anglo-Saxon", or "Saxon", which the learned historians here may be interested in weighing in on. CMD (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it is a good question, and as a not-learned not-historian i have some nonsense to contribute. Orme says Dachuna's name, unique in Cornwall/England, is similar to some saints found in Ireland, but that connection may be purely superficial. as she's just a (dubious) name in a list, it's not clear whether she would have been Cornish (Celtic-speaking) or Anglo-Saxon. "British" would probably be the least OR-y. at the same time, whether the A-S saints list should only include standalone articles is another question - i'd probably say yes, but i don't plan on working on that list for the time being and it's a bit out of scope of this AfD. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 10:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sawyer777:, I apologize for picking on your redirect suggestion! Was not meant to be a personal criticism at all. Sorry! SerialNumber54129 10:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    oh that's not at all how i read it! you're so good! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 10:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect but to a different target than suggested thus far: St Petroc's Church, Bodmin. Every secondary source on Dachuna refers only to Candidus' passing mention, so the only thing we can verify about her(?) is that she was said by Candidus to be buried at Bodmin Priory, where she was an associate of Petroc. I've added a line and reference about Credan, Medan and Dachuna on my proposed target, so it's a suitable redirect. This avoids the WP:UNDUE problems of redirecting to Candidus or Petroc and the identification problems of placing a Cornish saint on a list of Anglo-Saxons. Regardless of where it's redirected, there's no plausible grounds to keep this as a standalone page. The sourcing would indicate "delete," but I think Pbritti is right that a redirect would help guard against well-intentioned efforts to recreate the page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i wasn't expecting such lively (can you call it lively?) debate about where to redirect this. i think you make the best case so far. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ealdgyth and noting that inclusion on the Candidus list is itself adequately notable. The article itself explains the limitations of the source material. For medieval women, there are never a lot of sources. We also don’t seem to have anything like a “list of Saint’s resting places” on Wiki, which would actually be a somewhat plausible redirect to move the contents for stubs like this, but given we don’t, the content itself is worth preserving. Also must note we have already spent more bandwidth discussing this RfD than it is taking up on “teh wiki”. Montanabw(talk) 20:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For medieval women, there are never a lot of sources. that's just... not true at all. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SN. There seems to be simply not enough to write an article due to the one primary source. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. St Petroc's Church, Bodmin
  2. List of Anglo-Saxon saints
  3. Hugh Candidus

So I guess the question is which of these three redirects would be the ideal one? Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of saints

edit
List of saints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List has no clear criteria for inclusion. And if we were to include every saint from the four Churches mentioned in the table, then it would be far too long. I've created a new article (Lists of saints) which should serve as a directory for lists of saints, so I believe List of Saints should become a redirect to that. ―Howard • 🌽33 15:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this does get deleted, can we not delete the history and just put the new one over it/histmerge? I would rather not delete a 23 year article history if it can be avoided. Or redirect is fine too just keep the history. No opinion on the proposal itself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why does the history matter? ―Howard • 🌽33 15:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With pages this old and with this many sub pages, there's an extremely high likelihood this has been content split to some of the other saint lists at some point, so it would need to be kept historically for attribution reasons. Also historically interesting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't answer if it should be either. ―Howard • 🌽33 16:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of saints: This article should not exist in its current form, as it is way too painful to navigate. However, redirects are cheap, and I see no downside to preserving the page history. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

edit

Categories for discussion

edit

Miscellaneous

edit

References

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard&oldid=926383616"