Template:Did you know nominations/List of Byzantine churches in Amman

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

List of Byzantine churches in Amman

(

)

Ruins of a Byzantine church in Amman

... that the city of Amman, called Philadelphia during late antiquity, contains several Byzantine churches in it (example pictured)?

Source: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Geography_Urbanisation_and_Settlement_Pa/2lI8DwAAQBAJ

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Saint Gregory Seminary

Created by Makeandtoss (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 52 past nominations.

Makeandtoss (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC).

Not a review but I don't see how the hook is interesting or the historical name is relevant. You can combine the two nominations and make a double hook with Template:Did you know nominations/Philadelphia (Amman). It has a possibility to be something quirky, playing on the double meaning of Philadelphia. Yeshivish613 (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The hook is probably indeed not that interesting, so would go with ALT1: "... that some of the Byzantine churches in Philadelphia, modern-day Amman, were repurposed from earlier Roman temples?" Makeandtoss (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Long enough, new enough. Earwig's clean and QPQ is done. ALT1's still fairly bland, but that's not important right now. As written, this would deserve {{one source}}, which begs the question; what makes this meet WP:NLIST?--Laun chba ller 14:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Per NLIST: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." These churches are described as a group in this source [1], so this should fulfill the guideline. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The guideline asks that the topic be discussed by independent reliable sources, emphasis mine. I don't think one source is sufficient for that.--Laun chba ller 14:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I added another source: [2] Makeandtoss (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

You mean the bare URL, used once? One source is for articles that are largely based on one source, which this still is.--Laun chba ller 15:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I have fixed the bare url and used it in two more locations. If notability for lists is established through having these groupings made by reliable sources, then we have now two sources establishing that. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Just a friendly reminder. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

This should be fine.--Laun chba ller 14:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not convinced universes.art is a WP:RS for two reasons. First, it's not clear what editorial oversight there is for content. Second, it's a site dedicated to art. Whatever reliability it may have in that domain doesn't necessarially cary over to archeology, which is what we're using it for. RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Please address the above.--Laun chba ller 12:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Replaced with RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Do you have any other objections?--Laun chba ller 17:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith: The nomination is two months old tomorrow so please let us know if there are still any open concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't remember what originally drew my interest to this, but I see that the source I objected to has been replaced by one that looks more reliable, so for my part, I have no objections. But, I haven't done a full review. RoySmith (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: @Launchballer: Should be GTG now. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm allowed to retick this given mine was superceded, but I guess if Roy's alright then this should be fine?--Laun chba ller 13:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)