Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Recent changes of Christianity-related talkpages


Alerts for Christianity-related articles

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(6 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

(7 more...)

Featured topic candidates

Good article nominees

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(5 more...)

Articles to be split

Articles for creation


Christianity Deletion list


Christianity

[edit]

Chris Taylor (Christian rock musician)

[edit]
Chris Taylor (Christian rock 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)

Chris Taylor's individual notability boils down to winning a soap jingle contest (of which I can't find any evidence online) and being nominated for a minor music award. This falls well short of the criteria at WP:NSINGER. The information can easily be summarized in a sentence or two at Love Coma; merge per WP:BANDMEMBER. 162 etc. (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn MacDonald

[edit]
Katelyn MacDonald (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 article seems to be a classic WP:BLP1E; this individual received a burst of viral notability over a couple days in June 2024 for the bell-ringing video. I can't find any independent coverage since that burst of coverage; the only coverage I can find at all is an article from Duke, which is a non-independent source since the subject is an employee of the university chapel. Given that all three provisions of BLP1E are met (the reliable sources cover the person only in relation to a single event, the event itself is non-notable, and the subject remains a low-profile individual), this subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this one-time viral video incident is WP:DUE on that page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Christian School (Morgantown, West Virginia)

[edit]
Trinity Christian School (Morgantown, West Virginia) (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school article, and added a ref. I don't see WP:THREE instances of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, however, and don't think the school meets WP:NCORP, WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Redirect to Morgantown, West Virginia#Private schools is a possibility. Tacyarg (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • At least Weak Keep. Ideally, I'd like to see more in depth coverage from sources from further away, but there's a lot of documentation and enough I could find from other newspapers in the state.
    • "Trinity, St. Francis Schools Expand in Morgantown" (Feb 2006)[1] State Journal, Charleston
    • "Trinity Christian School Breaks Ground on New Wing" (November 2004)[2] Dominion Post
    • Residents Question Trinity Christians Impact (August 2004)[3] Dominion Post
    • "Trinity Christian opens new campus, transportation issues arise"(April 2005)[4] Dominion Post
    • "Trinity Adds Finishing Touches" (August 2005)[5] Dominion Post
    • "Trinity for sale to highest bidder: Bank looking to sell bankrupt Christian school" (May 2010) [6], Dominion Post
    • "Bank wants to sell bankrupt private school in Morgantown"(May 2010) [7], Charleston Gazette
    • "Trinity to keep school: Reaches deal with bank for $5 million" (July 2010) [8] Dominion Post
    • "Prep Sports:: Morgantown Christian school getting ready to tackle football" (Jan 2009) [9]" Charleston Daily Mail
    • More[10][11][12][13][14][15]
There are also hundreds of more routine sports articles, which actually makes it difficult to find the more in depth ones Jahaza (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as private school it will have to pass WP:NORG and I dont see any substantial in depth coverage from multiple independent sources. There is some coverage from a single newspaper but a lot is run of the mill and not in-depth, one single source is not multiple and trivial coverage of sports events does not constitute SIGCOV. --hroest
  • Weak keep - compared with most independent schools, this seems to get a lot of (at least local) media coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Hedman

[edit]
Bruce Hedman (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)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF from his publications listed in scholar, and I can't find any other evidence that he's notable: the Templeton award he won seems to be different from the Templeton prize since that had a different winner in 1993, and the International Association for Jungian Studies doesn't appear to be a selective organization. Psychastes (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the standards outside of NPROF are even more stringent, so using NPROF is the most charitable. Do you think he passes WP:GNG? Are there any sources with WP:SIGCOV? As I said I would be happy to keep if you can back your arguments up with a reputable source -- its not enough for you to say that he is notable and exceptional in his field, for an AfD keep !vote we need a reputable source that says so. --hroest 18:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revue des questions historiques

[edit]
Revue des questions historiques (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)

Unsourced translation of the unsourced French article. What at first glance appears to be dozens of sources, turns out to be dozens of articles in the Revue about other things. A few passing mentions here and there, but no significant secondary coverage that I can find. Other than Google, I recommend searching Qwant and Persee; see those links among the set of find-source links on the Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
  • Serious claim to be first modern scholarly journal in both France and the French language
  • Publication that went for 80 years
  • Important in France as an intellectual cornerstone of the Nineteenth Century Catholic revival
  • Important outside (and in) France as an early stage in exporting German "scientific history" methods
  • A linked internet archive and 4 (post AfD) references undermine the "unreferenced" claim
JASpencer (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only ref #1 is promising; the rest are passing mentions:
  • Ref 1: One solid paragraph about the journal; borderline WP:SIGCOV. Replicate this several times in secondary sources, with sources that have deeper treatment, and you probably have it.
  • Ref 2: mentioned in passing (2x) on page 158; e.g., In sum, the Revue historique served ideological purposes no less than the legitimist and conservative Revue des questions historiques, an historical journal which began to be published ten years earlier, in 1886, and which, as Carbonell writes, has been just about totally ignored by the few French historians who have written on the history of history in France..
  • Ref 3: One passing mention:
One passing mention

Like the discipline of history, which was divided between the conservative and Catholic Revue des questions historiques (1866) and the republican Revue historique (1876), the major textbooks on the history of law distinguish between, on the one hand, the work of liberals such as Adhémar Esmein and Jean-Baptiste Brissaud and, on the other, those carried out by Catholic jurists (Ernest Glasson, Paul Viollet, and Émile Chénon).

Original: À l'instar de la discipline historique, clivée entre la conservatrice et catholique Revue des questions historiques (1866) et la républicaine Revue historique (1876), les grands manuels d'histoire du droit laissent distinguer, d'un côté, les entreprises menées par des libéraux comme Adhémar Esmein et Jean-Baptiste Brissaud et, de l'autre, ceux réalisés par des juristes catholiques (Ernest Glasson, Paul Viollet et Émile Chénon).

See the links at the Talk page for additional possibilities for sourcing. Mathglot (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are continuing to add citations; that's great. Checking 5 and 6:
  • Ref 5: Ten passing mentions, with one on p. 111, as you noted. I don't see anything involving a significant treatment of the topic here, but if you can show that there is continual treatment on the three pages from 108 to 111 and not just passing mentions, that might help.
  • Ref 6: This is a 20-page article by esteemed French historian Charles-Olivier Carbonell about the birth of the similarly named journal, Revue historique, which to a large extent, was founded in reaction to the Revue des questions historiques and mimicked its format but not its content. I would say that this certainly counts as a reliable source with significant coverage of the topic (the first one that does, by my reckoning).
Is he the only French historian who ever wrote about it, or are there other serious treatments of it? Find two more like #6, and you're good. Mathglot (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ilija Macedonian Orthodox Church, Mississauga

[edit]
St. Ilija Macedonian Orthodox Church, Mississauga (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)

Already had a notability template on it. Can't really find any information about it online except the church's "About" page, which has been directly copy-pasted into the article. Currently have a copyvio template up, but it might be best for the article to just go. Spookyaki (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nativity of the Virgin Mary Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral, Sterling Heights, Michigan

[edit]
Nativity of the Virgin Mary Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral, Sterling Heights, Michigan (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 building doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. I added the only sources I could find to the article, and the only secondary source with significant coverage is Mactel Australian Macedonian News, which looks tenuously reliable to me. There may be significant coverage in Macedonian language sources. No obvious redirect targets. Suriname0 (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content itself is mostly generic info about the church and a piece of trivia about it. No indication as to why it is relevant in itself, probably best to include information about it in the Macedonian Orthodox Church linked in the article itself. 37.211.69.56 (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would anyone like to reconsider their !votes in light of Dclemens's findings?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Junction Colorado Temple

[edit]
Grand Junction Colorado Temple (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)

1. Subject does not meet WP:GNG as per WP:ORG and WP:NCHURCH. A dash of WP:TOOSOON as it would appear the church is not even open yet.

2. WP:PROMOTIONAL tone.

3. Overt reliance on WP:PRIMARY sources. It would appear that only two secondary sources are here.

Regardless, while points two and three might be addressed, point one will not be.

MWFwiki (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support deletion, although these concerns could be fixed with a re-write so maybe move it to a draft. Sushidude21! (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, possibly until September It looks like this temple will open later this year. That said, you may have a case that the articles on these buildings are overly reliant on LDS Church sources. Looking at this one, we have three articles from two sources (KJCT and KKCO share a newsroom — if I had a nickel for every time Gray Television came up at an AfD I'd reviewed in the last week, I'd have two nickels, but whatever). Every remaining reference is direct from the LDS Church or an affiliate like Church News or LDS Living. There is a substantial amount of puffy wording that could be cut down. I note an earlier redirect attempt was reverted by the creator of the current text. I want to see Happyrain2121 contribute as they have been very active in temple articles. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Draftify': There is likely to be sufficient independent WP:SIGCOV generated after the temple's completion to result in a WP:GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot assume whether or not there will be SIGCOV. Draftspace doesn't exist to park a topic until SIGCOV materializes. If it were opening in a week, sure, I'd support this... but outright claiming that will "likely be sufficient independent SIGCOV" is TOOSOON with a dash of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Regardless, SIGCOV arguably already technically exists, but we don't have it in the form of independent RSs. I'm not arguing to salt the subject, but I also didn't submit this article. MWFwiki (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what draftspace is for. Every other LDS temple has an article. I'm not saying this one should have an article in the absence of SIGCOV. I'm just saying that it's almost certain to have it by the time it's completed. No point in deleting and then having to undelete it later when we can just draftify it until the right coverage emerges. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftspace exists to "improve" an article. It is not "exactly" for parking an article to wait for SIGCOV to materialize. We also cannot assume SIGCOV will exist or not. It doesn't, presently. WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is not a replacement for SIGCOV. MWFwiki (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Improvement" includes looking for and waiting for sources. If in six months there are no sources and the draft is not improved, it will be deleted. If returned to mainspace without improvements, then it can be deleted. I participate a lot at AfD and I've !voted plenty of times for deletion, but it always makes more sense (and is more welcoming to page creators and thus supportive of new editor retention) to give articles on topics likely to be notable in the near future a chance to hang out in draftspace. Regardless, I looked at the history of this page, and it was a redirect before the article was created. Restoring a redirect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Colorado#Temples will have the same effect as draftification (the expanded article created by @Happyrain2121 remains in the article history, ready to be revived once sufficient sourcing is available) while allowing us to avoid a rather talmudic debate about the purposes of draftspace. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate everyone for taking the time to give feedback on this article.
With all that was mentioned, it seems like the main concern is whether the article meets the general notability guidelines. To align with that, I’ve added several independent sources that demonstrate the consistent coverage of the Grand Junction Temple—not just quick mentions or announcements, and removed the source that is marked as generally not reliable in Wikipedia. I’ve also made some updates to the article itself based on the comments given earlier, including neutralizing the tone, adjusting the language that might have come across as promotional, and improving the source formatting.
Before we wrap up the discussion, I am hoping that you could take another look at the current version of the article. I put in a good amount of effort to find additional independent sources to directly address the concerns mentioned. For example, I added two sources from Western Slope Now, a local news outlet—one from late 2022 and another from April 2025. The fact that they are published in different years and not church-affiliated, shows that this isn’t just a one-time mention.
Regarding church-published sources like Church News, I’ve used them to support basic and factual information. I find that it’s generally consistent with the guidance given in WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Sources, and it aligns with how similar articles use them. If there’s anything that still stands out to be insufficient, I’m more than happy to rework it. Happyrain2121 (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the newly added references?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Newly added independent sources show a WP:GNG pass, even before completion. As noted above, LDS temples are almost always notable so it's no surprise that sufficient coverage was found, even pre-completion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems the central point of the argument for deletion revolved around independent sourcing, and the two articles, focused on the temple, both span across multiple years, which meets WP:SIGCOV. This shows enough notability even before the temple will open. HappyRain2121 met the major points addressed, including the tone of the article being too promotional. An article with a "C" grade only needs to cite more than one reliable source (and the article has at least two from that independent source). It seems to already meet the standard of significant coverage, so the page should stay. Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 19:45, 13 June 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"