Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Recent changes of Christianity-related talkpages
List of abbreviations (help):
D
Edit made at Wikidata
r
Edit flagged by ORES
N
New page
m
Minor edit
b
Bot edit
(±123)
Page byte size change

19 May 2025

18 May 2025

17 May 2025

14 May 2025


Alerts for Christianity-related articles

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(10 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Good article nominees

(4 more...)

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(4 more...)

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(3 more...)


Christianity Deletion list


Christianity

[edit]

All India Christian Council

[edit]
All India Christian Council (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 page has been tagged non-notable since 2010. When I did my searching WP:BEFORE I found the All-India Christian Confederation and the All India True Christian Council which I assume are different things? The website that this page links to is dead. Against deletion I found this article and this article but I don't think they are in depth and the former might not be independent either.

As always with pages from places that speak languages I don't I will happily change my mind if presented with non-English sources Moritoriko (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T. Frederick Candlyn

[edit]
T. Frederick Candlyn (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)

Organist and choirmaster. No significant coverage in secondary sources and I don't see how his role at St Thomas Episcopal makes him automatically notable.

Worth mentioning that even within the limited category of organists who took an external music degree at Durham University, Candlyn does not compare that well to others e.g. I don't think he was ever a Fellow of the Royal College of Organists, a full professor of music, or the recipient of a government award (like Order of the British Empire, or an American equivalent) Leonstojka (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repast (funeral)

[edit]
Repast (funeral) (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)

Notability not established with significant sources: 1 is just a dictionary definition, 2 does not appear to use the term [1], 3 is not a reliable source, 4 only uses it once in passing, 5 only uses it once in passing, 6 appears to be a ref-bomb. Reywas92Talk 04:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xulon Press

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Xulon Press (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'm not sure if this self-publishing company meets NCORP. It meets GNG but the NCORP bar is high. Like all publishing companies it's hard to find the sigcov in the sea of book mentions, but all I found was this [8] [9], [10] [11] which I am not sure if it is enough for the higher NCORP bar. Could be merged into its parent company Salem Media Group PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geneviève Jeanningros

[edit]
Geneviève Jeanningros (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:GNG. She briefly went viral during Pope Francis's funeral, but other than that... she's just a nun. Luxic (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Oladele

[edit]
Israel Oladele (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)

Flagged and failing WP:GNG since October 2024, with no edits to improve it in the intervening period. Fails WP:BIO. Looks like WP:BLP1E based on the grift for which he was jailed in 2020. Otherwise WP:ROTM grifter and pastor 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Brestin

[edit]
Dee Brestin (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:BIO. Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT prohibits unilateral return top Draft. WP:ROTM author. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Round Rock Christian Academy

[edit]
Round Rock Christian Academy (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 nominated this article for PROD a week ago, but didn't realize that it was already nominated for PROD and contested in the past therefore being ineligible for another PROD nomination (whew, i'll be more careful next time). I don't think that the school is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. As far as I can see, there does not seem to be a suitable article to redirect to, so AfD is the only course of action available. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Loyola Jesuit College

[edit]
Loyola Jesuit College (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)

Seems to lack WP:SIGCOV and has had WP:PROMO edits. In WP:BEFORE did not find reliable sources such that WP:GNG fails here. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Binkley

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ryan Binkley (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)

Binkley hasn't recieved notable coverage outside of his campaign, as far as I can tell. Even the campaign coverage was mostly routine and the votes he recieved make clear that his campaign wasn't notable Esolo5002 (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: I can't grasp how this discussion was started despite the overwhelming evidence raised at the last AfD that indicates notability extending over multiple aspects of this individual. Even if you want to discount that the prolonged and significant coverage of Binkley's campaign does not extend notability to him as an individual, you have to accept that it does indicate notability of his campaign. Beyond this, multiple discussions established that there were substantial indications of notability beyond campaign coverage. Binkley's work as a pastor, M&A consultant, and restaurant franchise owner have all received coverage independent from his campaign. I would encourage Esolo5002 to withdraw this nomination expeditiously. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree very strongly with this reading of the last AFD, especially because two different discussions ended in deletions relatively recently. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those two deletion discussions closed with different outcomes because 1.) less coverage had actually occurred up to that point and 2.) there was a lack of awareness regarding the other sources of this subject's notability. The latter discussion clearly indicates that what had previously been a consensus towards deletion had overwhelming shifted to a consensus to keep. For many subjects, this is the natural progression of things. Your rationale for deletion is objectively false, looking solely at the sources in the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As a corollary to all this, see Talk:Ryan Binkley#Requested move 25 February 2024, which directly addresses the question of notability beyond the campaign. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the sources currently in the article
    1-Probably is good enough
    2-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability
    3-Routine campaign announcement
    4-Not a news article
    5-Routine campaign announcement
    6-Routine campaign announcement
    7-More in-depth campaign coverage
    8-Press release
    9-More in-depth campaign coverage
    10-Couldn't access but doesn't appear to be about Binkley enough to help his notability
    11-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability
    12-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability
    13-Interview
    14-Routine campaign announcement
    15-Routine campaign announcement
    16-More in-depth campaign coverage
    17-Press release
    18-Routine campaign coverage
    19-Routine campaign coverage
    20-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability
    21-Routine campaign coverage
    22-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability
    23-Tweet
    24-Routine campaign coverage
    25-Doesn't even mention him
    26-Routine campaign coverage
    27-In-depth campaign coverage
    28-Not a news article
    29-Doesn't even mention him
    30-Live blog
    31-In-depth campaign coverage
    32-In-depth campaign coverage
    33-Live blog (and even if it wasn't, not enough for notability)
    34-Not a news article
    35-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot)
    36-Literally has nothing to do with Binkley (I will remove this source after I'm done with this reply)
    37-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot)
    38-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot)
    39-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot, also Newsweek is not reliable)
    40-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability
    41-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability
    42-In-depth campaign coverage
    43-Not a news article
    44-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability
    45-Routine campaign coverage
    46-Couldn't access, probably routine campaign coverage
    47-Does not appear to be a reliable source, looks like a tabloid
    48-Press release
    One source is good enough for notability. Even in the in-depth campaign sources go on about nobody has ever heard of this guy. Lots of people run for President, some people have enough to get on the ballot, that doesn't mean they are notable. The Nevada coverage is so funny in hindsight because he was the only other person on the ballot, and got less than 1% of the vote. There is just not enough here for him to be notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your understanding is that six articles providing in-depth coverage of his campaign, another source you admit is adequate to source him as a subject, and still other sources describing him in other contexts is insufficient to retain an article? I think that you provide the real rationale for your edit in the comment above: that he got less than 1% of the vote. That being the case does nothing to determine notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Coverage of his campaign is not good enough for his own notability. It's good enough for his campaign's notabiity, not his own. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you thought that was the case, why aren't you proposing a move to Ryan Binkley presidential campaign? Jahaza (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are more sources available now then the last time this article was kept, and notability is not temporary. Jahaza (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: No explanation has been offered for why the previous discussion result of "keep" was invalid. Notability once gained is not lost. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to a campaign oriented page such as a correctly spelled version of Ryan Binkley 2024 presidental campagin. This subject is now in its fourth AfD. Thus far, two deletes and a keep. The first two times we got it right. There are three claims here: candidate, pastor, and businessman. There is a lot of "Who is Ryan?" coverage which is campaign coverage caters to nerds. It literally goes "hey, look at this after thought!" It's like the coverage is a concession he is not notable. I am unconvinced that such coverage will be historically significant. The citations are also very announcement heavy which seems redundant. There are a number of efforts to mask a lack of notability. Identifying how much he spent on radio ads, the totals of other candidates, mentioning he spoke at a dinner literally all candidates get to speak at, and elaborate descriptions of his election results are hallmarks of efforts to mask a lack of notability. In many of the citations, Binkley is not the main subject. While one need not be the main subject, I feel he is too tertiary to add up a bunch of mentions (as another user points out are routine) and pretend it is the same as a smaller number of in-depth, sustained coverage sources (the HITC listicle seems particularly egregious). There is no lasting coverage. There is no in-depth coverage of the candidacy or the subject. His candidacy does not confer notability.
This leaves us with religious leader and businessman. I do not think he meets the religious leader criteria. The Church has 650 parishioners. While this is more people than I could ever hope to get to join me in anything, a Texas pastor who set out to church plant and several years later has 650 parishioners is not on its own notable. Finally, I don't think his business career meets notability. The business sources in the article are only once independent of the subject and the mention of him as part of a small franchisee team. Notability gained is not lost as someone said, BUT notability can be wrongly conferred by an AfD during election season as happens pretty regularly (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Raby v.s. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Raby (2nd nomination)). Deletions were correct in the first and second nomination. It was on the third nomination, done during peak election season when WP:NOTNEWS gets thrown out the window, that an erroneous consensus was reached.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This !vote is confusing. A !vote for deletion necessarily means the deletion of the content. A redirect means deleting the content (and possibly merging some content) to an existing article. What appears to be suggested is a page move, which is fundamentally different as the content is retained (albeit perhaps with an alteration to the scope). Discounting fulfillment of the GNG (which this article and subject absolutely does) because it's about a guy who failed in an election is bad precedent. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am aware they are different. I mention I would be OK with a redirect as an alternative. I do not believe the subject should have a standalone page because of a failure to have the kind of independent, in-depth, sustained coverage expected under GNG as I say in my nomination and as Esolo5002 lays out in depth. There is no greater proof of this than the very little (if any) coverage of him since the 2024 Republican primary election. Would you prefer I make this exclusively a !deletevote?--Mpen320 (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed solution was a redirect to an article that doesn't exist. Further, a straight !vote for deletion makes no sense by GNG: Esolo5002's analysis indicates that we have a RS source from 2020 that provides SIGCOV of the subject plus multiple RSs providing SIGCOV during the election. That alone meets GNG. !voting delete would seem to be a peculiar reaction. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mpen320: I think Binkley is a bit of a loon, so your unsubtle aspersion should be retracted. If anything, please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can either claim my vote is nonsensical or you can be mad when I simplify it. This was not done out of spite, it was to ensure my vote is accurately weighted by the closer. I can see how my inclusion of the essay was unfair. I clearly made some assumptions based on past AfDs with candidate advocates fighting for articles. I should not have let that cloud my judgment as to your !vote.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mpen320: Your explanation is much appreciated. I agree that we should not run in circles here, and accept that you are convinced to !vote delete based on policy, even if I disagree. Let me know if you need help accessing at anything related to this subject if you participate anywhere else in this AfD. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete: Provide a single noteworthy news source talking about this guy after the election, or before the election. He was a flash in the pan candidate and people with Wikipedia articles should have enough coverage of the person beyond just one event, if not, mention them in the page for the event.
Ryan Binkley's inclusion in Wikipedia should be limited to a redirect to 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries#Candidates.
Scuba 21:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you forgot, but you were very clearly informed that there was indeed an adequate source prior to the election, see this discussion. If you believe that coverage persisting past an arbitrary point is a necessary prerequisite, this is not premised in the WP:GNG. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not changing my vote from last time as I'm not sure what has changed. SportingFlyer T·C 07:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not clear even from the sources in the article. He was minor candidiate that did not make it. It seems the artcle was created for his candidacy purposes. I don't see notable coverage after the Primaries in 2024. Not enough for a stand alone article. Cannot think of a useful redirect. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To any closer, please consider moving this to a draft briefly, as I would like to access the history for about 48 hours. I want to consider this for a possibly discussion on the relevant policy talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my comment here, but it comes down to the following: I worry the application of NPOL might be superseding the standards of WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. This article has SIGCOV of the subject from national- or international-level reliable sources from the following months:
      • May 2020 (pre-election): 1
      • April 2023: 1, 2
      • July 2023: 1
      • January 2024: 1, 2, 3, 4
      • February 2024: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    • Maybe US presidential elections are a special case where the remarkable amount of news coverage outweighs the conventional BASIC and GNG standards. Consider responding at the above-linked discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I started to write this at WT:Notability (people) where Pbritti has opened a separate discussion, but my comment became more about this specific AfD so I'm leaving it here. Breaking news like "Binkley announces he is running for president" is primary sourcing and therefore doesn't count toward notability under GNG or BASIC. Stringing together separate breaking news sources to create an article is bad practice and produces low-quality content. General coverage like a biographical piece on Binkley's life is secondary and does count toward notability. Most sourcing about him looks to be the former, and even the ones that lean toward the latter seem to be prompted and heavily influenced by ongoing events rather than analysis that indicates he has more generally been taken note of as a significant figure. So my question is whether any general biographical sources have been written about him. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thebiguglyalien: Thanks for replying here. There's a source from 2020 that's been discussed before, unrelated to the election. Please feel welcome to comment further in the other discussion, too; I'd like to hear more about what you said regarding BASIC in the discussion above the one I started. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day (Forrest Frank song)

[edit]
Good Day (Forrest Frank song) (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)

Redirect to Child of God (album). Despite charting, the song is not covered in reliable sources, thus failing WP:NSONG. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 04:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nomination can not be withdrawn once a "delete" !vote has been cast.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]

Categories for discussion

[edit]

Miscellaneous

[edit]

References

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