Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Recent changes of Christianity-related talkpages
No changes during the given period match these criteria.


Alerts for Christianity-related articles

Today's featured articles

Today's featured article requests

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(20 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Good topic candidates

Featured article reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(2 more...)


Christianity Deletion list


Christianity

[edit]

David Van Bik

[edit]
David Van Bik (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)

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 [1] 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]

Electronic daily devotional

[edit]
Electronic daily devotional (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)

Original research. The subject lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Ynsfial (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pietro Dib

[edit]
Pietro Dib (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)

I don't find that he meets the notability policy; I couldn't find any sources. فيصل (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia version of this page may have potential sources. -1ctinus📝🗨 21:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Khoury Sleman

[edit]
Elias Khoury Sleman (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)

I don't find that he meets the notability policy; I couldn't find any sources. فيصل (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Scranton

[edit]
Union of Scranton (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)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources. I can find mentions (such as [2], [3]), but not more than that. toweli (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unger Baptist Church

[edit]
Unger Baptist Church (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)

nn church; tagged orphan and unreferenced since 2018, menaing nobody cares --Altenmann >talk 22:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks significant coverage, one of 164 Baptist churches affiliated to a local association which doesn’t have its own standalone page. WP:NCHURCH, WP:GNG. Nihonjinatny (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Diocese

[edit]
Southern Diocese (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)

Lacking secondary sources. Completely fails WP:ORGCRIT. There is no way that individual dioceses of the fringe Free Church of England are individually notable. AusLondonder (talk) 15:13, 24 August 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) 15:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid split from a notable main article it does not have to pass WP:ORGCRIT in my view. In any case WP:NCHURCH specifies that passing WP:GNG is enough, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very generous reading of NCHURCH which states that religious organisations "must meet the notability guideline for organizations and companies or the general notability guideline or both". Nevertheless, can you explain how this meets GNG? Where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? It's certainly not there now. AusLondonder (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There should probably be an SNG on this but dioceses and other middle judicatories of major church traditions (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) are almost always viewed per se as notable, even without secondary sourcing (see AfDs from 2019, 2018, 2018, 2012, 2007, 2007). (The only "delete" results for a diocese that I've seen were for a tiny splinter group with no sourcing available at all or for an apparent hoax.) This isn't a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; there's precedent established in the discussions resulting in a long series of "keep" decisions for dioceses, and editors in those debates referred to previous precedent as well. Separately from this precedent, there is WP:SIGCOV for the FCE's Southern Diocese: see the Telegraph, Anglican Ink, PCN, and an encyclopedic entry in the Encyclopedia Americana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Each article needs to be judged on its own merits, not false claims to inherent notability. This is particularly the case for a minor, fringe organisation like the Free Church of England. To equate the FCE to the Catholic Church or the Anglican Communion is simply ridiculous. The Telegraph article is absolutely not significant coverage of the Southern Diocese specifically. AusLondonder (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I !voted above, I do think based on longstanding precedent "keep" is the community default for this sort of article, but I would accept "merge" as an alternative based on the size of the diocese (and considering that had it been up to me I would not have created free-standing pages for the FCE dioceses in the first place). Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per longstanding precedent that dioceses of established church organizations are typically treated as presumptively notable, provided that they actually have more than just a collection of people holding meetings in their living rooms. The diocese is admittedly rather small. But I think it passes our customary threshold. This has been the WP:COMMONSENSE approach to these articles for as long as I can remember. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Diocese" of a small splinter group consisting of eight churches. No significant coverage. No notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Diocese

[edit]
Northern Diocese (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)

Lacking secondary sources. Completely fails WP:ORGCRIT. There is no way that individual dioceses of the fringe Free Church of England are individually notable. AusLondonder (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes you think that precedent matters on wikipedia? We're a consenus based organization, that means that we explicitly reject the concept of precedent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:GNG, anglicanmainstream.org and anglican.ink are blogs, telegraph.co.uk does not write about the church itself but about an alleged crime (you could in theory use it to claim that the crime was notable, but not the church), and it would be weird to use the Lancashire Post article to claim its notable because the article is about how non-notable it is Demolition is justified through the current state of the building not being fit for use and no longer used by the local community. so you'd only have an article on christiantoday.com which is way too meager to make something notable. Polygnotus (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment deletion is obviously inappropriate, but I'm curious regarding the motivation to break this off from the main FCE article, as I don't see there's a SIZE issue necessitating a split. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens: would you be so kind to provide some sources that demonstrate notability? Because currently this does not pass WP:GNG. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. Do you need a basic intro to alternatives to deletion? Because I don't want to sound pedantic if you already understand it, but your question makes no sense in light of the content of my comment. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens: I know that merging exist, but your POV is as clear as mud to me. If a subject does not meet GNG standards, delete/merge seems the only appropriate action possible. I also don't know why everyone is named clemens and I feel a bit left out. Poly "clemens" gnotus (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You obviously know nothing of the sort. I'm a curationist, which means I'm always looking to present information in the best possible format, and merging or redirection is one of the best tools to do that. Deletion is unnecessarily confrontational for content where non-notability is the primary argument that it shouldn't exist as a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens: This is an encyclopedia, not /r/datahoarder, so deleting is not "confrontational", it is perhaps the most important thing you can do to improve Wikipedia. The Northern Diocese does not meet GNG, and the little content it has would be difficult to merge into the FCE article. Polygnotus (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're making a great argument for keeping it as a separate article. I agree. Keep as merging would be suboptimal and per the other keep arguments. Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens: you appear to be deliberately misinterpreting what Polygnotus said, there is no good faith way to interpret that as a "great argument for keeping it as a separate article" other than incompetence (which doesn't seem to be your issue) so this is uncivil and disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Horse Eye's Back Please temper your comments. You are entitled to your opinions, but impugning the good faith and/or competence of editors who disagree with you is not conducive to a collegial discussion. Kind regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At best Jclemens is mocking Polygnotus, that is not conducive to a collegial discussion... But you did not ask Jclemens to temper their comments or lecture them about impugning Polygnotus's competence and good faith (which is the result of such public mockery). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in the least. I'm merely applying the natural consequence of Polygnotus' badgering behavior. Beginning with would you be so kind to provide some sources that demonstrate notability? that editor's behavior has been irrelevant to my position--should this be kept or merged?--and as such, convinced me that opposing their apparent attempt to Right Great Wrongs was in the encyclopedia's best interest. You see, I could care less whether a religious group is a fringe schism or not, I just want us to cover it appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm Back to work please gentlemen. Polygnotus (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And now we're throwing evidence free aspersions of WP:badgering? There had better be evidence from other pages to support that assertion, because the edits to this page do not. I don't see how sources that demonstrate notability could be irrelevant to a position taken in a deletion discussion... Such a position can only be based on the existance or presumed existence of such sources (there is no other path to notability). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I !voted above, I do think based on longstanding precedent "keep" is the community default for this sort of article, but I would accept "merge" as an alternative based on the size of the diocese (and considering that had it been up to me I would not have created free-standing pages for the FCE dioceses in the first place). Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per longstanding precedent that dioceses of established church organizations are treated as presumptively notable, provided that they actually have more than just a collection of people holding meetings in their living rooms. The diocese is admittedly rather small. But I think it passes our customary threshold. This has been the WP:COMMONSENSE approach to these articles for as long as I can remember. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't get this circular reasoning. It's directly at odds with long-established policy that "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools" - should this been removed from WP:ORGCRIT then? Also "Presumptively notable" means we assume it is notable, unless evidence exists to the contrary, as it does here. AusLondonder (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AusLondonder I think you're taking an excessively legalistic approach to this. If you look at the subject of ships; almost any named military vessel or ocean going commercial ship has been treated as presumptively notable as long as there is evidence that it exists (or did). ASFAIK this is not explicitly spelled out in any guidelines. But I can't remember the last time an article about a military vessel or ocean going ship was deleted at AfD. And yes there are some obscure ships with very little in the form RS coverage. Sometimes just a short blurb in Janes and/or maybe an old news clipping somewhere. In the end, NORG is not policy. It's a guideline as are all of the SNGs. And there are and have always been generally accepted exceptions that the community has adopted organically over the years w/o spelling it all out in a new or amended guideline. On the other hand WP:IAR is WP:POLICY. I don't wish to come across as trivializing NORG or any of our other SNGs. I think they serve a useful purpose in keeping the clutter and promotional fertilizer out of the project. But I do not believe they should be treated as some form of scripture, i.e. infallible, inerrant and the last word on all matters. See also WP:COMMONSENSE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have to cite WP:IAR to explain why an article about an individual diocese of a fringe religious group with less than 20 churches in a country of nearly 70 million should be kept irrespective of sourcing, I think that demonstrates my point completely. AusLondonder (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fringe religious group? Ummm... ok. I think we have reached a point where we should just agree that we disagree and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what's controversial there. I'm not suggesting religious groups are fringe in general, I'm saying this is a very, very small group. It has less than 20 member churches, many with tiny congregations. In comparison the Diocese of Bristol in the Church of England has more than 200 churches alone. AusLondonder (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no such precendent... And wikipedia is not a precedent based organization... When it comes to policy and guideline based arguments precedent is not among them. You are currently arguing against a common sense approach, your position is the extremist/anti-consensus one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the only valid (policy and guideline based) keep argument is Atlantic306's... They're right that it doesn't have to pass ORGCRIT and they're right that passing GNG would be enough... The problem is that they don't demonstrate that it passes GNG, and it doesn't pass GNG. People keep saying precendent... but there is no precendent in policy or guideine on wikipedia, we're explicitly a consenus bases organization not a precendent based one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain why merging to the parent denomination isn't appropriate? Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe if a small selection of editors had actually made a case for merging rather than falsely asserting all dioceses of all religious groups no matter the size are notable irrespective of lack of secondary sources then people might be supporting a merge. AusLondonder (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything worth merging in this context. Merging is for when there is valuable content that would be of use somewhere else on wikipedia, this is self-sourced clutter of no signficant encyclopedic value. Nothing valuable or useful therefore nothing to merge. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, but either way, expand with the contents of this book
    Fenwick, John (2004-08-24). The Free Church of England: Introduction to an Anglican Tradition. T&T Clark International (now Bloomsbury Academic). pp. 133–142. ISBN 978-0-567-08433-0..
    because anyone interested in this subject is likely to be interested in the time the last surviving bishop nearly died trying to make the next bishop, as well as the local churches that split back to the organizations they originally split off from. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't this potentially contribute to the notability of the church? How specifically the Northern Diocese? Also WP:GNG requires secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing you didn't read the source, since the story here is specifically about the bishop of the Northern Diocese. Saying that's irrelevant is like saying that hiring the CEO for a company is irrelevant to the article about the company. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And how does any of what you've just said apply to notability? Because there doesn't actually appear to be a policy or guideline based argument in there... Fenwick is associated with the topic of the article so their book doesn't count towards notability at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the idea here that no source written by a member of a religion is Truly™ independent? We have not generally applied that standard to religious subjects, just like we have not checked authors' political party membership or nationality when deciding what contributes to notability for politicians or countries. It looks like the author became a bishop in this religious organization a few years after this publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Diocese" of a small splinter group consisting of eight churches. No significant coverage. No notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, It would perhaps be an improvement to this article if former parishes were noted also, to show the shifting geographic distribution of the denomination, for which the 1995 R.D. Fenwick (an Anglican Communion bishop, not a relative of the FCofE bishop J. Fenwick) doctoral thesis, currently the first source on the Free Church of England article, would be a useful source as regards the 19th & 20th C, but would not cover 21st C changes. However, with the currently information alone, neither this article, nor Southern Diocese, are seemingly sufficiently large as to necessitate separation from the main Free Church of England article, the details of the historic bishops and the current locations is relevant information regarding the Free Church of England, the sufficient notability of which I believe is not doubted. SemperAdiuvans (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you rightly say, the articles currently do not demonstrate why they should be seperate from the main article on the church. I would support restoring some of the content back to the notable church page. AusLondonder (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Gibson (Christian musician)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jon Gibson (Christian musician) (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)

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 alleged Paris blackout

[edit]
2024 alleged Paris blackout (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)

This is a non-notable internet phenomenon/hoax. The blackout didn't happen (as the factchecking references attest) so all we are left with is a number of non-WP:RS sites and YouTube making bizarre claims that failed to reach WP:SIGCOV. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Korea Jesus Presbyterian Church

[edit]
Korea Jesus Presbyterian Church (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)

No notability or SIGCOV; Wikipedia is not a directory. Article created 12 years ago but the only reference in it is an address database entry. Northern Moonlight 16:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason, note that they were created by the same editor:

Korean Presbyterian Church (HoHun) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (KoRyuPa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (JungAng) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongChongShin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongBokUm) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (ChanYang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (BoSuHapDong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (BokUm) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (YeJong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (JeongRip) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (Logos) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HwanWon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (DokNoHoe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (JapDongJungAng) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (YeJangHapBo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (DaeShin II) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (BupTong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (NamBuk) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongBoSu) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (SungHapChuk) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (BoSuTongHap) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (JeongTongChongHap) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongChungYun) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HanGukBoSu) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongEunChong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (DongShin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongJinRi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongYunHap) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (YunShin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (JangShin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (SunGyo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongYeChong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (ChanYang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (Ko-Ryu-Anti-Accusation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongChongShin I.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongChinShin II.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongSeungHoe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (JungRip) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (PyungAhn) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (JeongTongGyeSeung) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongTongHap) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongBoSu I.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (BoSuHapDong II.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (DaeShin II.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongHwanWon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongBoSu IV.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongBoSu III.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongBoSu II.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (ChongHoe II.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (BoSuHapDong III.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (TongHapBoSu) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (DaeHanShinChuk) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongYeChong I) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongSeongHoe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (GaeHyukHapDong I) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (GaeHyukHapDong II) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongGaeHyuk) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongJangShin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HoHun III) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (ChongHoe II.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (ChongHoe I) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (GaeHyukHapDong III) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (DokNoHoe II) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (BoSuJeongTong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongYeSun) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (JaeGun) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Presbyterian Church in Korea (GaeHyuk) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All prior XfDs for this page:


I am aware that I’m supposed to put {{afd1}} on top of each article, but given the extraordinary amount of them, I’d like some help. Northern Moonlight 16:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I see your point. I'm still for deleting all entries, but for the reason stated in this nomination. These were created from someone using an online data base, setting up individual articles from what amounts to a one-line reference info therein for each individual church. — Maile (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All 67 articles have now been tagged with {{subst:afd}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Unless these were created by a sockpuppet of a blocked editor I don't think any of these should be deleted before there is some evidence of a WP:BEFORE by the nominator or other editors. Also a number of these have an additional reference or two as well as the address database such as the one linked in the previous AfD which was no consensus, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presbyterian Church in Korea has an independent source and so do others. Anyway what is important is whether independent sources exist not whether they are already used in the articles, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD does not include Presbyterian Church in Korea. Northern Moonlight 20:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry the title is Presbyterian Church in Korea (YeJangHapBo), Atlantic306 (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is, at the very most, a single source for a single article, ignoring reliability and independence for a moment. I don't see sufficient independent coverage here. If you believe that other independent and reliable sourcing exists for these articles (all, or nay number, really), you are free to contribute them here. Cortador (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is most likely not an independent article, it reads like a press release. Викидим (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on the nominator to conduct WP:BEFORE on all nominated articles, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Currently, there are at least more than 200 churches in South Korea that use the name "Presbyterian Church of Korea" (대한예수장로회) as their official names (hence the confusing article names). These church branches are only disambiguated by a succinct nickname, such as "Hapdong", "Tonghap", or "Hapdongbosu" (although they may use different names in English, like Hapdong, for instance). According to some sources it appears that there are four major lineages of PCK branches: Koshin(branched off from the original PCK in 1952), Kijang(branched off in 1957), Tonghap and Hapdong (the original PCK split into these two in 1959). The rest of the branches have descended from the four after 1959. [4][5] Since none of the four major branches have been listed for AfD, would it be possible to merge each AfD'd article to one of the four major branches, depending on where they descended from? -- 00101984hjw (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. Too massive nomination. The amount of work to verify every church's notability in Korean sources is beyond what can be reasonably (let alone fairly) expected from competent and willing users. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Thank you.[reply]
  • Procedural keep: I don't support deleting 60+ articles on the presumption that they maybe aren't notable. No research at all has been done for most of the articles. If even one or two are notable then we have made a mistake. C F A 💬 19:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep: I already believed these should not be deleted, and now I am convinced by other editors that redirecting is not the best approach with a nomination of this volume. However, I would ask the closer to close this with WP:NPASR and/or with no prejudice against WP:BLARing any of these where appropriate and where editors cannot find appropriate sources. My recommendation for after this closes is either to redirect the majority of these to Presbyterianism in South Korea or to, as 00101984hjw, a list article yet to be created; this can be accomplished through WP:BOLD mergers and redirection or through proposed mergers if controversial, with (hopefully) no need to return to AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here and this is beginning to look like a TRAINWRECK.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time dilation creationism

[edit]
Time dilation creationism (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:NFRINGE. I find no notice of this by WP:FRIND sources. Only creationists seem interested enough to comment. Wikipedia really is WP:NOT for discussing every flight-of-fancy that a creationist has about how to reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific facts. jps (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of meeting notability guidelines, which would be provided by significant coverage in non-crackpot sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:FRINGE creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Nom admits this is a religious, not scientific topic, and yet proposes to apply scientific article criteria to it, making this nomination completely erroneous and hence eligible for speedy keep per SK#3. The religious sources are sufficient and appropriate (independent, etc.) for GNG to be satisfied. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What an absurd argument. Creationists routinely present their arguments as 'scientific', and are clearly doing so in this particular instance. Just read the sources cited. Pseudoscience does not cease to be pseudoscience when promoted to support religious faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they do. And when they're doing so on a religious basis, religious rules apply, not FRINGE. Sorry if you don't like the guideline, but I didn't write it. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant section in WP:FRINGE makes absolutely clear that it is referring to Notable perspectives and states the fact that claims from [e.g. creationist] perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. The article presents zero evidence that either mainstream theologians nor mainstream scientists have even heard of this 'perspective', never mind bothered trying to address it. The only non-creationist source currently cited in the article doesn't even bother to describe the 'perspective' in any detail, instead mentioning "time dilation" in passing in a single sentence in a section on "Examples of Pseudoscience". [6] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article? In what way is this article describing the creation of the world on a purely religious basis? Are you claiming that Russell Humphreys believes that time dilation is some sort of theological allegory?! jps (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the above, the suggestion that the religious sources being cited are 'independent' is both questionable and irrelevant, since they clearly aren't reliable sources for anything but the beliefs of their own authors regarding an obscure theory. Nothing is cited that establishes that this particular pseudoscientific hypothesis is even significant within creationism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I stripped out the science WP templates from the talk page as being non-relevant. The stub template was changed from cosmology to creationism. Beyond that I have no particular preference; it's pure pseudoscience so astronomy isn't all that relevant. Praemonitus (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks notability in RS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It should be kept in mind that the primary focus of the article is not scientific, but religious. It is a theological doctrine more than serious science. Thus it should be viewed with the criteria of a religious article. I did not intend to promote this thing when creating the article and I did not intend to promote fringe theories, but I thought that the article should be there to represent different religious doctrines. And as someone else already noted, WP:FRINGE reads: creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Thus the point of the original deletion request does not seem to be valid. As a religious doctrine, there seems to be just enough coverage for it. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my response to Jclemens above. No evidence has been provided that this perspective/doctrine has been "disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists". Or discussed in any detail by non-creationist sources at all. There is no religious exception to Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you don't understand what is religious and what is not is not our responsibility. Science is testable under controlled, repeatable conditions; this is not. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you have just discovered pseudoscience. As for what is or isn't religious, I have a degree in anthropology, and accordingly could write an entire dissertation on why trying to divide things into the religious and the non-religious is a fools errand. Fortunately though, that is unnecessary, since Wikipedia doesn't take such questions into account when dismissing as non-notable obscure proposals regarding time dilation and the origins of the universe only discussed in unreliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You realize you just ceded the point that this is a religious topic, right? That makes your critique of the sources as "crackpot" irrelevant and voids your !vote: the sources in the article may not be appropriate for a scientific discourse, but there's nothing obviously wrong with them as religious sources. Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis are reliable sources--torchbearers, really--for the literalist Genesis/YEC religious perspective, so notability is met unless this is entirely a non-religious topic, which you have just ceded you cannot definitively assess. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You now seem to be claiming that the mere fact that Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis have written about something makes it inherently notable. That is utterly absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Religious content can be crackpot. For example, this content. jps (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the complete lack of coverage in non-creationist sources, and the lack of evidence that this is even significant to creationism, there is nothing to move. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense. If there's verifiable content--and there is--an appropriate merger is a perfectly valid ATD. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "verifiable content" is there? The fantasies of Young Earth Creationists that no one else even bothers to notice? jps (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is literally a single WP:RS. That means no significant coverage, as in not notable, and that in fact it’s . We have long used WP:FRINGE to get rid of essays and pages that are little more than gee-whiz trivial nonsense, hey look at this kooky little idea. Bearian (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am sorry if I misjudged the worthiness of the topic to be on Wikipedia when I created it, I did not intend to promote fringe theories. If I was wrong, then it can just be deleted. I thought that since it is a religious topic and I was able to find multiple religious sources about it, then it could be worth its own article, but I may have been mistaken about their worthiness on such a topic. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to apologize. WP:FRINGE is hard to get right especially as there are often sources that show up about fringe topics which superficially look reasonable (and might be in less, let's say, controversial areas). The general principle that I find works well is that we can have articles on fringe subjects when they are noticed by people who are not convinced that the fringe idea in question is necessarily correct, but where it gets confusing is when you have internecine disputes among fringe claimants so it looks like you have "independent analysis" in the sources when instead you are just looking at different flavors of fringe. Keeping topics out of Wikipedia for which sourcing cannot follow the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding is one of the better solutions we've arrived at to keep the integrity of the reference work high. The alternative is a free-for-all. jps (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that this isn't FRINGE. It's religious. It has "creationism" right there in the title. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its fringe, even for creationism. And it isn't notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory. Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects. For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research—denialist histories, for example—should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic. Emphasis mine. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've already read that. And quoted it above. Where I pointed out that "mainstream theologians and scientists" have said absolutely nothing on this topic. Which is why it is fringe, why it isn't notable, and why an appropriate encyclopaedic article cannot be written. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It bases articles on secondary sources, removed from the subject itself. Not on a few primary sources arguing the toss about pseudoscientific hokum amongst themselves. There is no religious exception to Wikipedia notability requirements. Notability is demonstrated through coverage in sources independent of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let it go, man. Your ridiculous misunderstanding is clearly not the consensus understanding of our community. If you want to change our rules, start a conversation elsewhere. jps (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, while I've disengaged, several others have come along and agreed with my perspective. I do not think the consensus is what you think it is. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: While fringe hypotheses can be notable, there isn't enough coverage of this one in WP:RS to warrant a separate article. Any content from this article that's up to standard should be merged/transcluded into one of the other articles on creationism. 0xchase (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Creation_science#Creationist_cosmologies and mention it by name there since the it is the "relativistic effects" mentioned. This comes up in teaching astronomy classes and there is a source:
Bobrowsky, Matthew (2005). "Dealing with Disbelieving Students on Issues of Evolutionary Processes and Long Time Scales". Astronomy Education Review. 4 (1): 95–118. doi:10.3847/AER2005007.
StarryGrandma (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Young_Earth_creationism#View_of_the_Bible as a parallel subsection as Interpretations_of_Genesis. The title is a highly specialized jargon that is exclusively related to the field of creationism, and as the article itself claims, it “is a form of the Young Earth creationism”. Given the current shortness of the article, a reader would frequently click back and forth between this and other pages related to creationism for a better understanding. It’s actually easier for readers if the short article be merged with a most relevant and more comprehensive article. Nihonjinatny (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's not clear to be relevant as a standalone idea to merit being talked about. And besides, the only criticism is from other creationists, the article still lacks a mention to the mainstream scientific ideas. And for those saying that "this is religion, not science", that distinction is only relevant on how we write the article. Notability, if we should have an article to begin with, is unconcerned by that. Neither religious nor scientific topics are automatically exempt from the notability guideline just because of their topic. Cambalachero (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same as previous relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]

Categories for discussion

[edit]

Miscellaneous

[edit]

References

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard&oldid=926383616"