- Inspiration of Ellen G. White ( | 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 · NYT · WP Library)
As advocated by Wctrenchard. Note that I don't agree with them, since deletion is not cleanup. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Comprehensively sourced article, clearly dealing with 'a thing'. As noted by nom, AfD isn't cleanup and sending an article to deletion on the basis of one user's issue with the tags on it isn't going to work, IMHO. Not sure why said user isn't just, well, cleaning it up themselves! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Of course, I or someone else could "cleanup" this piece, but that is not the point. Not every "thing" deserves a Wiki article. The main issue is that no matter how this is cleaned up, it will still be an unacceptable, theological apology concerning the "inspiration" and religious authority of a particular 19th century person. You should note that the only other apparent "inspiration" article like this is "Inspiration of the Bible"! There is not even a counterpart for Joseph Smith -- and appropriately so. If something about this needs to be said somewhere, I will be happy to add a sentence or two to the bio article on Ellen White. Wctrenchard (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep simply stating with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV what the SDA Church believes is not apologetics. And we also let its critics have their say. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The info could be put on Ellen White even though it's not needed there Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. So, let me try to trace the lineage of what's going on here. Wctrenchard noted on the article's talk page that there were a couple maintenance tags, and... it is now at AfD? Even though the nominator doesn't support deletion? Why are we even here? jp×g 23:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- IDEA – List for Veneto ( | 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 · NYT · WP Library)
The subject, which is introduced as a political party, was in reality just a local electoral list like many others in Italy, composed of two parties: Solidary Ethical Movement and Greens. This electoral list only got a mere 0.7% of the votes in the 2010 regional election in Veneto, I do not see any encyclopedic relevance on this page... Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia, whose greatness lies specifically in gathering and organising infos which would be difficult to find elsewhere. This political party was a very interesting political experiment and, while it did not achieve success, it deserves a space in Wikipedia. Moreover, from this experience, a green local political party obtained notable electoral results in the city of Padua (8.1% in 2014, 11.5% in 2017 and 6.0% in 2022)—it could also have an article of its own, as Livable Rotterdam and others. A minor party in a polity like Veneto, counting 5 million people, is definitely more relevant than minor extra-parliamentary parties from small countries, of which Wikipedia is full (and, as an inclusionist, I happy of that too). The article is properly sourced and is clearly relevant for Wikipedia. Of course, it is not easy to find more sources on an old minor political party, but it is very important that Wikipedia keeps having articles also on little-known subjects. If, regrettably, there is no consensus on keeping it as a stand-alone article, let's merge it with the Federation of Greens, at least, even though it is clearly better for readers to navigate from article to article than finding infos on a subject in larger articles. --Checco (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The most important thing is how many votes a party/list has received (few in this case) and how much is known and treated in the sources (and also in this case the sources are very few). The results you've showed were obtained from other civic lists, not from IDEA – List for Veneto. And even if the Civic Coalition (not IDEA – List for Veneto) has achieved not negligible results in a city as important as Padua, it is not exactly the same as a party like Livable Rotterdam has obtained 30% of the votes in a city with more than 600,000 inhabitants (even if the relevance of a party should not be demonstrated by comparing it with other pages). Honestly, I don't see how a list that scored 0.6% in a single regional election could be merged with a party with thirty years of national political experience: the Italian Greens have created a multitude of such local lists... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- A short-lived electoral list, not even a political party. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/merge An electoral list isn't the same as a party, and it's untrue that every little thing deserves a space, or at least not an article. Can be mentioned in respective election or party articles, but poor performance at the local/regional level doesn't win you a stand-alone page. Reywas92Talk 22:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete political parties are kind of notable, however I see it was not a classical party but a electoral list-project in local region. --2A01:C22:7231:3800:DC94:D85A:E399:69DE (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Italian users needed here I suppose 2A01:C22:7231:3800:DC94:D85A:E399:69DE (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft keep kinda special coalition Braganza (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- What is special about this coalition?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Scia Della Cometa it deserves remaining in Wikipedia. 95.117.31.251 (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- yes... but why?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- well its a merger of greens (which are more ecosocialist than green liberal in italy) and christian democrats Braganza (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly still do not see anything special in this local list which, moreover, has obtained a forgettable electoral result...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - 1) local/regional party, with local notability only at most; 2) no inherent notability: the fact that a party exists/existed doesn't mean it deserves an article in Wikipedia. P1221 (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning towards keep, even given the minor nature of the electoral list, as there is no current natural choice of article for the information within to be preserved elsewhere via a merger. --Autospark (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that the last part has nothing to do with the list, the little initial information could be integrated directly into 2010 Venetian regional election.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Chapel of Our Lady, Echt ( | 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 · NYT · WP Library)
Does not appear to satisfy WP:NBUILDING as there is no significant in-depth coverage from WP:RS, third-party sources to demonstrate notability. – Meena • 08:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. – Meena • 08:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it’s a national monument in the Netherlands (see this ref). Mccapra (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Christianity. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Dubious -- We do not allow an article on every listed building. The reference cited is a very brief register entry, though that certainly is authoritative third party coverage. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:GEOFEAT, yes we do.
Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I worked a bit on the article to provide inline citations and additional info. The building is a National Monument. As a church, it has an interesting and well documented history, including as a pilgrimage site. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT as a heritage-listed national monument. Also meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it is a historic building and recognized monument. Pikavoom Talk 06:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Faith Presbytery, Bible Presbyterian Church ( | 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 · NYT · WP Library)
Does not pass WP:NCHURCH due to a complete lack of significant independent reliable sources. ––FormalDude talk 04:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. ––FormalDude talk 05:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- This is a denomination of 9 congregations, not a mere local church, but I still doubt it is large enough for us to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingirion I understand that the denomination is really small. However, I have added more independent sources that cover information about her. Even small, there are independent sources telling its history and doctrine. Therefore, it meets the notoriety criterion. Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this is a very poorly written article, and it took a bit of work to confirm whether this denomination was Brazilian or American: User:Daniel Silva Mendanha also wrote the Portuguese article. But no, it appears they did not "adopt the name 'Igreja Presbiteriana Bíblica - Presbytery of Faith'". StAnselm (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @StAnselm Indeed, there was a translation error. I first created the article in Portuguese and then the one in English and there was a translation error. I have already corrected the information. Thanks for the collaboration. Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've added another independent source, which talks about the denomination's history and doctrine. As much as it is a small denomination, it has its history and doctrine informed by independent sources, in a way that meets the criteria of notoriety.--Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- East African Christian College ( | 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 · NYT · WP Library)
Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL. No independent, extensive coverage to back up this two-line stub about a non-notable Anglican school. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Rwanda. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment probably TOOSOON. Thi9s looks as if it is a tertiary level college, not a mere high school, but until we have more than a stub saying that it exists, I do not think we can regard it as notable. I will revise my view if the article is expanded. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Autobiography of Anthony Mary Claret ( | 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 · NYT · WP Library)
Article fails notability and sourcing. Only references to this autobiography are inline citations to biographical discussions of the subject's life. Simply Google search yielded quite a few copies for say, though! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Pbritti (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now given that this book has been printed in about a dozen different languages, it seems unlikely that it won't pass our criteria for number of reviews. However, tracking them down in different languages, under different titles, and largely predating the internet age is a big project.--Jahaza (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jahaza: As part of the process pre-AfD, I searched for said reviews and came up empty-handed. If you can find these reviews, sure, I'll even retract the AfD early. But I don't think the promise of sources is enough to qualify it for retention. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- I am extremely doubtful that the prophecies of a Spanish (?) mystic of over 1250 years ago are WP-notable, even if much translated. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: that's an incredibly strange comment. This book is an autobiography, not "prophecies" and the author, Anthony Mary Claret, lived from 1807-1870, not "1250 years ago". Consider striking.--Jahaza (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: I agree with Jahaza here. A bit of an oddball comment. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Translations are normally a good indication of notability, but not in this case, since this isn't commercial publishing - he's the founder of a Catholic religious order, the Claretians, who of course will translate the book because they are interested in the autobiography of their own founder. ie, it's a point for the notability of Claret, not this book in particular. I would argue otherwise if there were sources discussing the autobiography as a work of literature, or some other way than just mining it for biographical citations, but there don't seem to be. -- asilvering (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd just cut it and stick it at the bottom of Claret's article, for all the half page it is. Oaktree b (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Jesus Christus, Menschensohn ( | 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 · NYT · WP Library)
No evidence of notability: while this short text has been included in some religious song books, it doesn't seem to have received any actual attention from reliable, independent sources. Sources in article are databases, or lists of contents: only source with some further text is the "Werkhilfe zum Singheft", which is more of an educational/technical guide on how to perform it.
Trying to find actual sources about the song turns out to be fruitless. Nothing in GNews[1] or GBooks[2] (the one source is by Schlegel so doesn't count), and the 25 regular hits[3] produce nothing useful not already in the article. A redirect to Helmut Schlegel may be a good alternative for deletion. Fram (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Religion, Christianity, and Germany. Fram (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think it is well-enough sourced, and is of education value. --evrik (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I'd defer to Gerda on this since she's the one who speaks German and has access to the sources. But I'd presume that there might be more coverage of the song in offline sources? I imagine the topic has wider coverage offline than online. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's review the sources in the article (current as of Special:Permalink/1095357779):
- 1 is a "hymn portrait", published in the Diocese of Limburg's semi-annual church music journal. Authors are a priest and the diocese of Limburg's head of church music, who also edits the journal.
- 2 is a database of hymns that mentions which hymnals contain the song
- 3 is a list of songs in the Limburg version of the Gotteslob (might be better to cite the Limburg Gotteslob directly)
- 4 is a primary source sales listing for 5
- 5 is the table of contents of a songbook that contains the hymn
- 6 is an excerpt from a songbook containing the hymn
- 7 is a booklet accompanying this collection of choral settings (published annually). Author is "Bundessingwart und Kantor im Christlichen Sängerbund", an evangelical choir organisation.
- Of these sources, only 1 and 7 are worth considering, the rest is trivial database entries or sales material. Source 1 is from the time the new Gotteslob was introduced and contains several portraits of the new songs that were included for the Diocese of Limburg's version of the hymnal (the first part of the hymnal is identical for all German-speaking Catholic dioceses, but most dioceses have their own songs in the other part). I wouldn't be surprised if the authors were involved in the decision to include this song in the Limburg hymnal, but I haven't researched this further. Anyway, this is a good source. Source 7 is not Catholic and shows reception of the song outside the diocese and denomination of its origin. It is fairly short but a reasonable description of the song, written for people who want to use it in church service or for choirs.
- Without source 1, this would be a clear "redirect to author" for lack of independent secondary sourcing. As it stands, we don't really have "multiple" independent sources doing an in-depth treatment. While the songs of the main (common) part of the Gotteslob have all been subject to in-depth critical commentary (see [4] for a list of some literature) there does not seem to be much about the Limburg hymns so far. Probably merging to the author is still the best solution until there is another in-depth discussion of the song. —Kusma (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review. To clarify: Gotteslob is one book, with a regional section for numbers 700 and up, the regional section a collection of hymns traditionally sung in the region and new songs fro the region, like this one.
- I think the guidelines for songs are mostly made for recorded songs with a broad publication. It seems a bit unfair to expect the same kind of reception for a regional hymn. What I see:
- This is a song that is actually sung. There are many in Gotteslob which get practically never sung, but this one fits many occasions (as could be expanded based on ref 1 which I found only yesterday).
- This is a hymn that has not yet made it to other regions of Gotteslob but to several other collections.
- This is a text that inspired two composers.
- This is a text written by a prolific and thoughtful author, and worth knowing about - I think - even if no second in-depth discussion pops up. We have IAR, no? Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glauben können wie du. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- These are not particularly good arguments. "People sing this", well, we need them to write about this. "This is only a regional hymn, so we should expect sources to be bad" sound more like a reason not to write individual articles about regional hymns, not to accept lower quality sourcing... and I do not think invoking IAR works particularly well to have four songs by this author as individual articles. Remember, we are not here to promote them, no matter whether they deserve that or not (and many texts are "worth knowing about" and we exclude them to prevent people from promoting their causes). Der Herr wird dich mit seiner Güte segnen in the main part of the Gotteslob is probably easiest to source; there seems to be far more written about it, even if the article doesn't reflect that. (I find the sources for Glauben können wie du slightly worse than the ones presented here, and am surprised it got so many "keep" comments). All of these articles btw suffer badly from broken links. —Kusma (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relist to consider the possibility of a merger and to welcome other viewpoints to this discussion and examination of the sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Roman Catholic church (Mariupol) ( | 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 · NYT · WP Library)
Poorly sourced to just one website. Fails to establish notability and some of the claims, such as when the church was destroyed, are not found in the offered sources. The claims may well be true, but we need to be able to verify them. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per failed GNG. Also, some of the facts in the article seem to be confused with one of the more notable Eastern parishes destroyed in the Soviet period. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a brand new article. From the 1900 photo (which appears to be from a book), i would expect the church to be notable, ie that plenty will have been written about it. But how to search for coverage, because what was it actually called, in what languages? Eg the term "church of the Italians" may never have appeared, it may be a recent translation of an Italian language phrase used in Russian or Ukrainian. I don't imagine it was actually called "Roman Catholic church". No RC church would call itself that, it would likely be named for a saint and covered under that name. Also I see the article creator built it up, but then removed two photos (which do appear to show it as a prominent church) and a passage of text. I don't understand what's going on, would like to hear from the creator. I don't see interaction at their talk page, I only see they were given the abrupt AFD notice, and this is about a new article. Why not make contact first, or is there a lot of history here between editors, say? Also Is there more in any other language Wikipedia? -Doncram (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- It was common for merchant communities in major ports to establish their own church, so that they could be ministered to in their own mother tongue. The article is thus credible, and may have been known locally as the Italian Church, though that would not be its formal name. However I would question whether it was notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I do wish User:ColeB34 would participate in discussion here. FYI, i am not opposed to creation of articles about buildings in Mariupol or elsewhere that have been destroyed; it is well- understood in Wikipedia that "once notable, always notable". Also, the event of destruction of a church could be part of what makes the former church notable. This current event of book burning at an apparently surviving church in Mariupol makes it, the Church of Petro Mohyla or Petro Mohyla Church (named for Petro Mohyla), adds to its notability. I don't see that one in Category:Buildings and structures in Mariupol.--Doncram (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I, too, wish that User:ColeB34 would weigh in here. That user has made recent changes, so it is obvious that the article is not abandoned. Give it some time, or suggest another place to move/merge the information. Radzy0 (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All sources appear to be self-run blogs that provide unclear details regarding the nature of the parish. Besides failing the two reliable-source standard and WP:NOBLOGS, the article must be renamed if we retain this article. "Roman Catholic church" is far too vague and a common name of literally of hundreds of parishes. We should use the parish's actual name, as is the standard for articles like this one. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think sourcing is sufficient for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – At the time I patrolled this article, I needed to choose between draftifying and AfD. The poor sourcing pushed the decision towards deletion discussion. Had the article been in its current state, I may have opted for just tagging. There are still some problems with the sourcing but it's now to the stage where a reader may be able to evaluate the evidence and make their own decision. Except for the evidence trail for this discussion, the redirect left behind from the page move is - as mentioned above - from a not-very-useful title and should perhaps be considered for deletion after this discussion concludes. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 18:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Chand ( | 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 · NYT · WP Library)
Non-notable evangelist. Fails WP:GNG. See also Special:BlockList/User:Justhell. – Ploni (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep It's a pretty poorly-written article but it passes the notability sourcing requirement (narrowly). Notability outside those constraints seems tepid at best. Would appreciate AfD nominator reporting on search results. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I do not see much notable in the article, just a one-man ministry, something of a kind we regularly delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is routine, trivial coverage of a local fight that essentially name drops him and nothing else...it would be weird if a mention like that didn't exist in a local paper. This is a WordPress blog, not a reliable source. This I would say does contribute to notability and this one to a lesser extent since it seems to straddle the line between trivial and significant coverage, but WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources, and I don't think having only two cuts it. The article also fails WP:ANYBIO, and certainly fails WP:NBOXING, though I don't think that's what the article was trying to assert notability for. If there is a religious figure-specific notability guideline I am not familiar with it. - Aoidh (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoidh: Typically, "multiple" means at least two. However, I would agree that just two is a low hurdle, especially when notability is difficult to ascertain even within that coverage. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pbritti:I should have clarified. Yes, multiple means at least two and sometimes two is enough, but the quality of the two must be considered, and even in the talk page archives at Wikipedia talk:Notability there's no agreement that there's a set number of references that meets the "multiple" standard, and sometimes two isn't enough of a "multiple". I would argue this is one of those cases. I realize I said two is not enough which seems like a blanket judgement against what defines "multiple" on WP:GNG, but what I meant was two is not enough in this instance, given the quality and scope of coverage in the two sources given. - Aoidh (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoidh: Oh good I think we are in agreement here. I am still weakly in favor of keep, but you're right in your stance. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church ( | 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 · NYT · WP Library)
Much like the Southern Episcopal Church that this body seems to have split from, secondary sourcing is near impossible to find. Pbritti (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Tennessee. Pbritti (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: does it have an entry in Encyclopedia of American Religions? StAnselm (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @StAnselm: Not saying it isn't in there, but I just spent about 15 minutes searching through a digital copy and could not find it. Makes sense, as the most recent publicly available edition was published about the same time the AOSEC is thought to have gotten off the ground. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, delete then. StAnselm (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- All the more reason to merge them if no formal split occurred. –Zfish118⋉talk 01:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comment - Merge: The Southern Episcopal Church has multiple websites, apparently remnants from different decades that were never taken down. They all, however, consistently use a logo that says "The Southern Episcopal Church of the United States" with a subtitle: "Anglican Orthodox". It seems pretty clear that this article, the "Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church" is the same body, and this article should be redirected to Southern Episcopal Church. This article describing it as a splinter group seems to be flawed WP:Original Research, as the sole source on this page says All Saints Church is the cathedral for the Southern Episcopal Church. The talkpage references the incorporation of an entity called the "Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church" with the Tennessee secretary of state, but it is rather routine for an organization to have multiple underlying corporations. Here is a list of affiliated websites, not one of which describes a schism:
- I thus conclude the logical and appropriate choice is merge and redirect, removing any reference to a schism. –Zfish118⋉talk 16:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found nothing on this: nothing on Google scholar, nothing on Google news, no mention in the 2009 Melton's encyclopedia of American religions. This alleged organisation clearly fails WP:GNG. Since there is nothing properly sourced, there is nothing to merge. Veverve (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly merge to Southern Episcopal Church in a separate section headed daughter denominations. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I was able to locate primary sources verifying that it exists. There are conflicting primary sources over whether the Southern Episcopal Church and Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church are the same organization or if the Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church split from the Southern Episcopal Church. Regardless, I could find no independent coverage of the Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church so fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Discussion seems to be headed towards either merging or deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VersaceSpace 🌃 04:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Anglicans and the Episcopalians are basically the same church, one exists in areas of British influence, then the Revolution happened and the American branch got renamed (but follows the same religious stuff). The Orthodox Church is what the Christian churches called themselves after the split in 1066. The first two are Protestant groups, the second are older Roman Catholic/sort-of Catholic groups. It makes no sense to try combine the two groups in my mind and that's why finding sources is difficult/impossible. Sic transit gloria mundi. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hope 08 ( | 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 · NYT · WP Library)
No indication that this mission had any lasting importance. Refs are all primary except the CD review, which is not really about the event but about a related album - and notability is not inherited. No after-the-fact independent coverage located on a search.
De-PROD'd with the addition of this reference, which is not great in my opinion as it's mostly reporting what some guy involved with Hope 08 said to a bunch of church leaders about church attendance increasing. It actually in no way serves as coverage of the Hope 08 campaign. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Christianity, and United Kingdom. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- It appears to be a short-lived campaign run jointly by several notable Christian organisations, with no ongoing notability. I doubt it is worth merging to any of the sponsors. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Short-lived campaigns, if they receive adequate coverage, can certainly be notable, WP:NOTTEMPORARY ~Kvng (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If there was adequate coverage, I wouldn't have taken it to AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seems to be mentioned by the BBC at least once: https://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/content/articles/2008/05/14/hope08_aston_feature.shtml would this count as coverage? The "Hope Together" mission that Hope 08 was a part of seems to be going strong https://www.hopetogether.org.uk/. Maybe rename to Hope Together and expand?Spiralwidget (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm. It's published by the BBC, but there's no byline, and at the bottom, it says "send us your photos, stories and experiences and we will add them as features to the BBC Birmingham website." This suggests that the content in the above article is submitted by members of the church/movement as promotion for it. Other features from around that time on Wayback Machine indicate the same - this one was "Compiled by Young Adults from Science of Spirituality in Birmingham", whereas others like this one have bylines, indicating that they are by journalists. But even if we accepted it as significant coverage, it's only one piece, so there's still not enough for GNG. (I am not counting the source added by Kvng for the reasons outlined above.)
- If Hope Together has GNG-compliant independent coverage (own website obviously doesn't count), I have no opposition to moving this article to that title and rescoping/expanding. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No articles proposed for deletion at this time
| |