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

Alerts for Christianity-related articles

Today's featured articles

28 Jan 2025 – Lewis W. Green (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb

Did you know

19 Jan 2025 – Finja Church (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Yakikaki (t · c); see discussion
08 Jan 2025 – Christopher Trychay (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Pbritti (t · c); see discussion
07 Jan 2025 – Christian death metal (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by 3family6 (t · c); see discussion

Articles for deletion

18 Jan 2025 – Eadwig's Charter to Abingdon Abbey c.957 (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Beeblebrox (t · c); see discussion (10 participants)
18 Jan 2025 – Salem Church, Cheslyn Hay (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Cremastra (t · c); see discussion (6 participants)
18 Jan 2025 – Natività della Vergine, Thiene (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Sheriff U3 (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
17 Jan 2025 – The Wise Man Built His House Upon The Rock (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Dclemens1971 (t · c); see discussion (3 participants)
16 Jan 2025 – St. Francis School, Greater Noida West (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by CSMention269 (t · c); see discussion (6 participants)
15 Jan 2025 – Jerome Fernando (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Vestrian24Bio (t · c); see discussion (5 participants)
14 Jan 2025 – Bill Wilson (pastor) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
14 Jan 2025 – Regada Festival (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Moriwen (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
13 Jan 2025 – Lobo Church (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Moriwen (t · c); see discussion (5 participants)
11 Jan 2025 – Mary Immaculate High School (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Qcne (t · c); see discussion (6 participants; relisted)

(14 more...)

Proposed deletions

20 Jan 2025 – Church of Jesus Christ in Zion (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by 107.10.161.110 (t · c): Potentially a duplicate page of this https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Church_of_Jesus_Christ_(Zion%27s_Branch), also a Mormon church operating out of Independance Missouri, also mentions Roger Billings as being a member of the church on both pages. I am ...
12 Jan 2025 – Living Temple Ministries (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Here2rewrite (t · c) and endorsed by Bearian (t · c) on 13 Jan 2025 was deleted

Categories for discussion

15 Jan 2025 – Category:Attacks on churches in the United States (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion
15 Jan 2025 – Category:Attacks on churches in South America (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion
15 Jan 2025 – Category:Attacks on churches in Sri Lanka (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion
15 Jan 2025 – Category:Attacks on churches in North America (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion
15 Jan 2025 – Category:Attacks on churches in Iraq (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion
15 Jan 2025 – Category:Attacks on churches in India (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion
15 Jan 2025 – Category:Attacks on churches in Europe (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion
15 Jan 2025 – Category:Attacks on churches (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion
15 Jan 2025 – Category:Attacks on churches in Africa (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion
15 Jan 2025 – Category:Attacks on churches in France (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion

(8 more...)

Redirects for discussion

17 Jan 2025 – Vicariate (Orthodox) (talk · edit · hist) →Vicariate (Eastern Orthodoxy) was RfDed by Veverve (t · c); see discussion
16 Jan 2025 – Arian crisis (talk · edit · hist) →Arianism was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see discussion
14 Jan 2025 – Basic Christian doctrine (talk · edit · hist) →Christian theology was RfDed by Veverve (t · c); see discussion
14 Jan 2025 – Master of Christian Studies (talk · edit · hist) →Christian theology was RfDed by Veverve (t · c); see discussion
14 Jan 2025 – Theological Controversy (talk · edit · hist) →Christian theology was RfDed by Veverve (t · c); see discussion
12 Jan 2025 – SCCTM (talk · edit · hist) →Santa Claus Conquers the Martians was RfDed by Rusalkii (t · c); see discussion
11 Jan 2025 – Lukas Miklos (talk · edit · hist) →List of Left Behind characters was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see discussion
10 Jan 2025 – Larry Pile (talk · edit · hist) →Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see discussion
04 Jan 2025 – Western Civilisation (talk · edit · hist) →Western culture was RfDed by Rotideypoc41352 (t · c); see discussion
04 Jan 2025 – Western Civilization (talk · edit · hist) →Western culture was RfDed by Rotideypoc41352 (t · c); see discussion

(1 more...)

Good article nominees

14 Jan 2025 – Middle judicatory (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Dclemens1971 (t · c); start discussion
03 Jan 2025 – The Voices of Morebath (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Pbritti (t · c); start discussion
01 Jan 2025 – Eileen Niedfield (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Oh-Fortuna! (t · c); start discussion
24 Dec 2024 – William Plumer Jacobs (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by PCN02WPS (t · c); start discussion
23 Dec 2024 – Terry A. Davis (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by OpalYosutebito (t · c); start discussion
12 Dec 2024 – Jehovah's Witnesses in Singapore (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Kingoflettuce (t · c); start discussion
04 Dec 2024 – Conspiracy No. 5 (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Toa Nidhiki05 (t · c); start discussion
21 Nov 2024 – Mike Pilavachi (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by It is a wonderful world (t · c); start discussion
05 Nov 2024 – St. George Utah Temple (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Itsetsyoufree32 (t · c); start discussion
31 Oct 2024 – Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80 (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Gerda Arendt (t · c); start discussion

(2 more...)

Good topic candidates

18 Jun 2024 – God Is (talk · edit · hist) was GT nominated by Kyle Peake (t · c); see discussion

Christianity

Eadwig's Charter to Abingdon Abbey c.957

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

This article is a rambling mess that spends no time at all describing the supposed subject, a land grant. I'm not making a notability argument here, more of a blow it up and start over argument.

If the charter itself is notable, the article should be about that, but this article wanders from one subject to another, like what kind of farming Danish Vikings may have done on this land before the charter, what kinds of rushes like what kind of soil, a three-hundred-year timeline of the area that was the subject of the charter, etc. I don't know what this is supposed to be, but it does not look like an article about a land charter. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and England. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with the nom statement, but in addition, even if the charter were independently notable (it is not), the best place to discuss it anyway would be Abingdon Abbey. A redirect would not be appropriate; this is not a reasonable search term. -- asilvering (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was tempted to nominate it when I added the maintenance templates 3 months ago, and nothing has improved since I flagged the issues. Even if the topic is notable, it would be easier to start from scratch than try to fix the current article which is pure WP:SYNTH going far beyond what any of the citations support. Joe D (t) 20:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an article. Someone's notes on tangentially-related topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at the very least, get it out of mainspace. This is a draft at its fetal stage. Qwirkle (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Denmark. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete Goodness gracious. This is many things. A coherent article is not one of them. Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Possible subject for a PhD. But not enough material out there for an article right now and I don't see cause to presume notability. TNT considerations are also valid. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In terms of notability, the article Anglo-Saxon charters lists two volumes of Charters of Abingdon Abbey, published by Oxford University Press in 2000 and 2001 - this article references neither. This charter might be individually notable, or the collection of charters to Abingdon Abbey might be, but it's not clear without access to the sources what a notable topic might be, and it's definitely not this strange conglomeration of information. I agree, WP:TNT applies. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not a useful encyclopedia article. PamD 11:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Church, Cheslyn Hay

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

Likely not notable under WP:NCHURCH.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Cremastra
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
www.cannockchasemethodists.org.uk				✘ No
The South Staffordshire Local List				✘ No
Dunphy Church Heating				✘ No
Express & Star				✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Cremastra (u — c) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Christianity, and England. Cremastra (u — c) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cheslyn Hay under a header along the lines of ==Landmarks==. Noteworthy in context, but not necessarily independently notable. BD2412 T 19:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable. Cremastra (u — c) 19:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have reapplied {{subst:afd2}} due to malformed formatting. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cheslyn Hay. In addition to the sources listed in the article, it's likely there's content on the church in Cheslyn Hay - The Golden Years and The Bygone Days of Cheslyn Hay (both listed on a well known website). They're picture & caption books, but unable to determine amount of coverage. The church building also comes under WP:NBUILDING and WP:GNG so I believe the WP:SIGCOV requirement can be met by adding together reliable, independent sources, whereas WP:NCHURCH evaluates each source separately for significant coverage. Nonetheless, insufficient verified coverage to make more than a stub. Agree with the previous contributor's merge appraisal. Rupples (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cheslyn Hay, which currently uses an image of the church but doesn't otherwise mention it, let alone source it. Relevant categories can be attached to the redirect, if sourced in the target article. PamD 11:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a Historic England listed building it would probably pass WP:GEOFEAT but its only locally listed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the British Newspaper Archive, which I only have search access to, there's a chance this might be able to be saved. Unfortunately there have been a lot of local newspaper mentions of this church so SIGCOV doesn't come up easily - for instance it may have been mentioned in a London paper in 1863 but I don't have access to that article. As it stands, the article as written does not pass our guidelines. SportingFlyer T·C 19:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cheslyn Hay. As PamD says, to have the church as the only Cheslyn Hay image, but not to mention it in the body of that article seems odd. It isn't sufficiently Notable for a stand-alone. KJP1 (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natività della Vergine, Thiene

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

No sources to establish notability per: WP:N. See talk page for more info. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Italy. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wise Man Built His House Upon The Rock

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

Familiar children's song fails WP:GNG, WP:NSONG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources. In this article we have a scriptural passage (a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE; see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE), a self-published blog post, another primary source (the song's lyrics), and an unbylined exegesis of the parable whose inclusion here is a form of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. I did not find any qualifying sources on the song in a search, although I expect an article on the parable could be written if one were inclined. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Bible, and Christianity. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parable of the Wise and the Foolish Builders#Hymns. Not surprisingly, we already have an article about the parable on which this hymn was based. As the nom indicates, no independent, reliable secondary sources have been provided about the hymn itself (as distinct from the parable it comes from). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok with redirect as an alternative. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is reasonable. The current state of the article is WP:TNT-worthy. The target, Parable of the Wise and the Foolish Builders, could use some help, but it's a good start. Bearian (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Francis School, Greater Noida West

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. No such sources found to qualify GNG ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that draftifying the article would be optimal. If proof can be found that this school actually does operate worldwide and enrolls thousands of students then this is likely a notable subject. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete. This article appears to match the content of Draft:St. Francis School, Greater Noida by same editor, who by username has a COI. Not clear what the "West" distinguishing detail is for the topic. But I also don't see notability for this school (if consensus to delete rather than draftify, then the draft presumably should also be deleted). DMacks (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with comments - also, unsourced content and content sounds more like ad Asteramellus (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find sufficient coverage. Drushrush (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Fernando

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

Non-notable person. The editor submitted this page for afc and once it was declined, they just did a copy-paste move from Draft:Jerome Fernando to mainspace. Vestrian24Bio 13:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Vestrian24Bio 13:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He said some things that people didn't like [1], [2], which led to criminal charges, but I don't think that makes him a notable criminal. The sports career isn't notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO. Nicely done bio, but it amounts to free publicity for one more person of faith. Nothing out of the ordinary about his ministry. These types get a lot of press coverage by saying all other faiths but theirs are fakes ... which is essentially what he did. He got a lot of press coverage out out of it. None of that makes him rise to notability in Wikipeda. — Maile (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Christianity, and Cricket. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. In Sri Lanka it's a crime to belittle other religions, and that article would be a valid redirect target for an admin to use as an ATD. Bearian (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Been waiting for other editors to find the SIGCOV I couldn't, and article creator has now resorted to adding paid awards like the "Global Asian Achievers Council", so I guess that about wraps it up here. WP:BLP1E at best for getting himself arrested for petty insults. Wikishovel (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wilson (pastor)

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

3/6 sources are his organization. Another is dead link. There is only this [3] and apparently a mention in a book. If it should not be deleted it can probably be merged with Metro World Child. 🄻 🄰 16:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Massachusetts, and New York. 🄻 🄰 16:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No WP:PAYWALL-compliant argument against notability articulated. Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regada Festival

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

Local sources only found. — Moriwen (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Philippines. — Moriwen (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lobo Church

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

Run-of-the-mill parish church. No indication of notability. — Moriwen (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Philippines. — Moriwen (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nominator has said, this is clearly a run-of-the-mill. This is the church of Lobo, Batangas, similar to other churches that ~~all~~ other barangays in the Philippines have. In addition, the church seems to have nothing that would make it notable. AstrooKai (Talk) 11:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, not all barangays have parish churches. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I guess it's more of "almost every barangays" rather than literal "all barangays". AstrooKai (Talk) 11:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even "almost all barangays". Where are you getting these stats? Pasig doesn't have 30 churches. Is something lost in translation here? Howard the Duck (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's how this news article and people I have met present it. Also, I don't think this is much of a concern considering that this AfD is about the church's notability and not the factualness of my statement of "all" or "every" barangay having churches. I will not continue to discuss this further. AstrooKai (Talk) 14:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article refers to "places of worship," of which churches are a subset. This distinction is important because the argument is "there are 40000+ churches such as this one so this is not notable", which is obviously not the case. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Commenting as someone who is a lay parish server)

There is indeed a lot of confusion there, because the original comment said "similar to other churches that all other barangays have" and the basis for this was the quote in the Inquirer article that said "almost every barangay in our country features a Catholic place of worship."

In the Catholic church, a "place of worship" could mean anything: cathedral, basilica, shrine, parish, chapel (public or private) or oratory. Under the Code of Canon Law (Canons 1223-1229), however, a chapel is not normally included in the count of churches because chapels can be erected anywhere (in the Philippines, you can find them in schools, hospitals, office buildings and even shopping malls); it can even be closed to the public (i.e. private chapel); and unlike parish churches (of which the AfD'es article is one) a chapel only needs the permission of the local bishop and need not have a corresponding decreeof canonical erection from the Pope. No one in his right mind would include (say) schoolor hospital chapels in the tally of "churches that all other barangays have". --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — (moderate) — Generally, seconding nominator. Fairly strong notability failure, in my opinion. At most the content should be merged into Lobo, Batangas, since, as AstrooKai pointed-out, barangays hosting their own parish church is moderately notable. This, however, does not make the church itself notable. MWFwiki (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Philippines does not have 40000+ parish churches!!!
God, AstrooKai poisoned the discussion with that falsehood. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a point, please kindly make it, otherwise stop bludgeoning and you should probably AGF. MWFwiki (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The points are
Your argument rests on a statement that is a misunderstanding at best, and a deliberate falsehood at worst.

Because of (1), all arguments based on that statement should be disregarded, and I reserve my right to point that out.

As for (2) you can report me to the appropriate drama boards of you seem fit. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or merge with Lobo, Batangas. There are perhaps scores (if not hundreds) of centuries-old churches in the Philippines, and not every one of them have articles. If the AfD were up to me, the two easiest reasons for me to vote for a Keep are either #1.a significant event or incident that took place in the church (like Barasoain Church, or #2.the existence of an NHCP marker in the church premises, because the significance and importance of the church was already vetted by an official government agency. (NHCP markers are similar to Listed Buildings and Blue plaques in the UK, Fondo Ambiente Italiano markers, Kulturdenkmal(for German-speaking nations), and Monument historique (France). This one doesn't have both, and I cannot yet think of any other reason to have this article. In the absence of such justification, I'd move to either have this article deleted or just have it merged to Lobo, Batangas so that the historical information about the church may be retained. --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lobo, Batangas per WP:ATD. I don't think it can stand as a notable article on its own and the parent article is short enough to accommodate some of the info here. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Immaculate High School

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

No indication of notability under WP:NORG. A single Primary Source to the school's website. A search of the web brings up local newspapers with GCSE results, new buildings being opened, but no significant non-routine coverage. Article was recently replaced with promotional unsourced text by a self-disclosed paid editor. qcne (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)<o/span>} 17:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: How was the article able to last a decade on Wikipedia without any Significant Coverage?? Clearly fails WP:NORG and appears to be a promotional article. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 20:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was sourced before it was messed around with. Sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG as with pretty much all British secondary schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as it is a public school WP:NORG does not apply umless it happens to pass it. The correct policy is WP:GNG which permits local sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2025 (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, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In light of Necrothesp's comments, I made a bold move and restored the article to before it was coimmandeered. If it stands, maybe we should be continuing discussion on the basis of that version. _signed,Willondon (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, that still just leaves one independent source (local news). qcne (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. I found Non-local and even National news both sad news and good news and hopeful. There is significant coverage but you have to look. Bearian (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Hill Memorial Park

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

Fails WP:GNG. Apparently WP:SYNTH and based on unreliable sources: a self-published site ([4] and a WP:USERGENERATED site ([5]), plus a brief local news mention that retails a false claim about this site being the location of the first Catholic Mass in present-day US, and an academic source that does not mention this place. BEFORE search turns up no WP:SIGCOV of this park. Contested PROD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Added: Withdrawn below per discussion and improvement. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Christianity, and New York. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Asteramellus (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There's quite a bit of secondary, published material on this site if you search "Indian Hill" and "Manlius, New York." It is a historically significant site. Yuchitown (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please share those resources in this discussion? I searched on those very terms and did not find anything that would qualify toward GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some to the article. It's an archaeological site. Yuchitown (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yuchitown I had a chance to read through the sources added.
The Archaeological History of New York and Onondaga Iroquois Prehistory discuss only the hill as an archaeological site, not the park.

Historical Marker Database is a WP:USERGENERATED site and unreliable (search "HMDB" at WP:RSN).

Couldn't view Syracuse Herald Journal Newspaper Archives since no link was provided.

I think there's probably enough for a GNG pass of Indian Hill as a place but not Indian Hill Memorial Park as a park. If you are OK with moving this page to Indian Hill (New York), I would withdraw the nomination to facilitate that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not helpful. There are several "Indian Hill"s in New York, and if people are looking for the location now, they will only find it by searching Indian Hill Memorial Park. Yuchitown (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yuchitown Perhaps Indian Hill (Onondaga County, New York)? If you insist on the page bearing the name of the park, then I will repeat what I said in the nomination and what is clear from the sources you added: that the park itself does not meet GNG, even if the hill it is named after does. (Not to mention, if the page moves to an appropriately notable subject name, "Indian Hill Memorial Park" will still be there as a redirect.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "insisting" on anything. Deletion is by consensus; a nominator doesn't dictate terms. If you wish to propose a move, you are welcome to do so on the article's talk page, but that is a separate conversation. The location has a long and varied history. I added some citations; not the Syracuse Herald, and haven't exhausted all sources. Plenty of historical Native American towns that no longer exist have articles; they are notable and are discussed in second published literature, as this site is. Yuchitown (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not dictating terms for anything. I'm offering to withdraw the nomination, followed by a move. Filing a requested move during an open AfD would be unproductive, but I don't want to withdraw the nomination if the only "keep" !voter would object to such a move post-withdrawal. Trying to trim some bureaucracy here without ending up in a situation where the article has to be renominated.... Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's an Indian Castle Village Site in Manlius, NY which is on the National Register of Historic Places. I can't tell if Indian Hill Memorial Park is the same listing or not, though. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Elkman I suspect not; the Village Site is address-restricted as is often common with newly designated sites that may include Native American remains (see page 2 here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010-12-22/pdf/2010-32050.pdf). Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elkman, I mentioned that in my edits to the article since it’s all part of the same location. Yuchitown (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to where your edits said that? I don't see anything about a National Register listing in the article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t mention the historic register. I just mentioned that the Indian Castle site is nearby. You are, of course, welcome to edit the article. Yuchitown (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if this is the historic site, let's all agree to move the article to Indian Castle Village Site, stick an NRHP infobox on it and be done with it instead of debating the notability of a park. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The exact location of Indian Castle Village site is undisclosed. Indian Hill Memorial Park also the location of a much larger archaeological site, the 17th-century Onondaga town. Yuchitown (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yuchitown, article has been improved since the nomination. oncamera _{(talk page)} 16:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be good to get more eyes on the improvements made while the article was under discussion here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There has indeed been work on this article since this nomination. Not the least of which, is an additional 8 sources, and a Bibliography. — Maile (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looks like a HEY. Some MOS improvements would probably cap off what seems to be a good expansion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If no one else has concerns about the article's title being a non-notable topic (as distinct from the locale of the park, which is what the added sources refer to), I'll withdraw with a keep and move !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Smith (Vicar of Great Paxton)

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

No evidence this individual passes WP:NBIO, WP:GNG. No pass on WP:NAUTHOR either; there's a published response to Smith's polemic on Quakerism but nothing else verifiable. (The Bockett letter does not appear to have been published and thus would not count as a review.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Christianity, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again not finding anything about him except for a short blurb of the same book you mentioned on the Quaker archives of Canada. ❤History Theorist❤ 00:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There some book reviews, but they are all polemics for one side or the other. FWIW, I am an Episcopalian. Can we get input from folks who know more about Quaker history? Bearian (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Sweden Yearly Meeting (via WP:PROD on 6 November 2024)

Categories for discussion

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

Miscellaneous

References

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