Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Christianity. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Christianity|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Christianity.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Christianity[edit]

WEYS-LD[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the disambiguation does not explain how the term at all relates to the two entries. I could see canada, but a church cantoris? it just doesn't seem right. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Judaism. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or just redirect) to the disambiguation page Can instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:SMALLDETAILS may apply, just merge it into Can, and figure out any WP:DABMENTION issues there? --Joy (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Can. Add Cantoris there only after adding a sourced mention of this in the target article. PamD 11:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fell down the rabbit hole: abbreviation is now mentioned and sourced in Cantoris. Have also rejigged the Can dab page to separate out the two abbreviations. PamD 12:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Baker-Hytch[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics): (1) research does not have a significant impact (1 book recently published, no commentary on his work, less than 100 citations. (2) zero awards. (3) Not a member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. (4) Nothing to indicate that anyone is discussing this person's work, let alone "academic work has made a significant impact"! (5) Not a distinguished professor, a postdoc and a tutor. (6) did not hold a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post. (7) mentioned once BBC Dorset for playing in a band, which he does not have a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. (8) Not the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. Checking the basic criteria, the article is compiled from his work (WP:Primary + the section about "Ideas" is pure original research, e.g., "Baker-Hytch contends that mutual epistemic dependence is an essential mechanism for human acquisition of knowledge with no citation. A few sentences later, there is a citation to a book that discusses the topic but not the person or the person's ideas. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep. This article satisfies the criteria for notability (academics). (1) His research has the significant impact. He has published numerous papers in various academic journals. In addition, he has the high rate of citations (more than 100 considering the rate of citations of all his papers). You may use Google Scholar carefully. (2) He received the British national award from the Research Councils UK. (3) He is a member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly institute. He is a fellow of the University of Oxford and member of the relevent associations at Oxford. (4) Many academic papers discuss his ideas. For example, DEBUNKING ARGUMENTS GAIN LITTLE FROM COGNITIVE SCIENCE OF RELIGION, Divine hiddenness, the demographics of theism, and mutual epistemic dependence: a response to Max Baker-Hytch etc. Again, you may use Google Scholar carefully. If you find it difficult to have the access to academic journals, the easiest way is to contact your university library if any. (5) He is a distinguished research fellow at the University of Notre Dame and University of Oxford. (6) He is a senior fellow at the University of Oxford. (7) He has a substantial impact outside academia such as popular debates. (8) He reviewed and edited numerous academic journals such as Erkenntnis, Philosophical Papers, Religious Studies etc. Therefore, it is indispensable to keep this article. --Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you really missing the point here and provided more reasons for the article to be deleted as participating in debates, having citations around few hundreds, and being a postdoctoral research fellowships or a college tutor (that is his own words) is not a reason for article to be included here. see Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for details about what the word "substantial" entail FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read carefully the criteria, you will find that academics meeting any one of the criteria, are notable. There is no need to meet all criteria. One is enough. Max Baker-Hytch already satisfies the first criterion and others. Therefore, he meets the notability requirements.

By the way, welcome to debate at Oxford. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section regarding mutual epistemic dependence is NOT a pure original research. If you read it carefully, you will find that J. L. Schellenberg's discussion on Max Baker-Hytch's mutual epistemic dependence Divine hiddenness: Part 2 (recent enlargements of the discussion) is cited. If you find yourself unable to get the access to academic journals, the easiest way is to contact your university library if any. Also, Max Baker-Hytch's mutual epistemic dependence is discussed by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. --Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, Christianity, England, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Double-digit citation counts on Google Scholar fall below the bar for WP:PROF#C1. Being a Fellow at Oxford is just a teaching job, not the kind of honorary level of membership in a selective society (such as FRS) that would pass #C3. Reviewing for journals and occasionally getting cited in journals are things all academics do; our standards for notability are significantly above that level. Nothing else in the article even resembles a claim of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Max Baker-Hytch is not only a fellow but a reputable academic and researcher at Oxford. His work is characterised by its depth and relevance, evidenced by its considerable, significant impact within the academic sphere. In addition, his research consistently maintains a high rate of citations, further solidifying the claim to keep his article. As a result, he obviously meets WP:PROF#C1 and the established criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck out your comment as you are only allowed a single keep or delete opinion in a deletion discussion. This is not a vote; more keeps and more repetition of the same claims will not help. It is a discussion to clarify how Wikipedia's notability guidelines apply to this case and build concensus on whether Baker-Hytch does or does not meet those guidelines. You might also find WP:BLUDGEON to be helpful advice. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking out my comment is unacceptable and outrageous as it goes against a fair discussion on Wikipedia and the First Amendment.

If I mistakenly make more than one KEEP, please delete the redundant KEEP but leave my comment intact. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Baker-Hytch has written numerous academic papers, resulting in a total citation rate (of all papers) higher than 100. This impressive achievement reflects the impact and significance of his contributions to the academic sphere. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This promotional glurge reads like something an AI would write. [Comment referred to Special:Diff/1221275435 before it was edited to change what I replied to.] —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a human and not an AI, but I speak in a calm, formal manner. I am elaborating on my argument. Could you stop irrelevant distractions or personal attacks? We should focus on our clarification instead. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100 citations isn't a high bar for a real academic in most fields. I have 88 at the moment, and I've never held a non-clinical faculty appointment. Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you are not from Oxford. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you read carefully, you will find that I said his TOTAL citation rate is higher than 100, not only 100 but significantly higher than that. The total citation rate and discussions on all his papers are obviously above one thousand. You may use Google Scholar to search all his papers and relevance discussions. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks WP:TOOSOON for this 2014 PhD. Citations are far short of WP:NPROF, even in a low citation field. I don't see reviews of the one book for WP:NAUTHOR, and it would likely be a WP:BLP1E anyway. Little sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that you have only considered his DPhil thesis and have neglected many papers written by him. The total citation rate and discussions of all his papers are higher than hundreds or thousands (see Google Scholar). Therefore, there is no doubt that he meets the WP notability criteria. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically address the citation record above. I have examined the publication and citation record, and see nothing that is not WP:MILL. There is one paper with a good number of citations relative to career stage, and not much else. As I say, WP:TOOSOON (at best). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pesclinomenosomlos has apparently been canvassing this AfD to multiple user talk pages [1] [2] [3] and has been blocked as a result. Pesclinomenosomlos, once your block expires: do not do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TOOSOON is too generous. I see no evidence of coverage, let alone significant coverage. — HTGS (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (if I'm allowed to !vote in these circumstances), there seems no reason to keep this article. I've no idea why I might have been canvassed to help keep the article, as I've not come across either editor or article subject; but since Pesclinomenosomlos has been indeffed, the matter is purely, er, philosophical. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Max Baker-Hytch has the extensive Authority Control Databases. He is likely to have the potential to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.127.168.31 (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
I noticed that Max Baker-Hytch is being discussed by many high profile academic journals, encyclopaedias and websites. For instance, IEP, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press and Research by the University of Birmingham.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.127.168.31 (talk) struck comments of IP, now blocked for block evasion
The Cambridge and Birmingham papers are the same paper. Are there any other sources? IEP and SEP mentions are good but quite brief. Shapeyness (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the subject stands out from the field. The IEP and SEP mentions, for example, are entirely unremarkable; a couple brief statements to the effect that an academic wrote a thing are not a suitable basis for an encyclopedia article. The text is heavily promotional, with boastful claims unsupported by the sources (e.g., His thesis [...] is considered a phenomenal contribution to the field). The ending line of the intro, saying that He also proactively defends Christianity [...] on social media, is either a truly pathetic angling for significance or damnation by faint praise. To delete will be a kindness. XOR'easter (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inclusion in IEP and SEP articles is not nothing as those pages often detail only the more important contributions in a specific debate, but they are brief mentions and in a very niche subject matter. The same mostly goes for this Philosophy Compass article here doi:10.1111/phc3.12413. It seems the subject of the article is making some important contributions to a niche area of phil of religion but not really enough substantive analysis in RSes to support an article - WP:TOOSOON. Shapeyness (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:Too soon as yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete -- per Too Soon. The citation numbers are almost enough for philosophy; it's a field where automated tools are very poor at picking up citation counts. But institutional position (tutorial fellow is not senior lecturer or professor) and lack of major awards says come back in 5-10 years. I'm generally a bit sad to delete articles that I'm pretty sure will legitimately come back w/ a clear notability in a few years, but this is sufficiently self-promoting that it'll probably be better to start again from scratch if that happens. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Chaplain to the King[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is fundamentally flawed. The position of Honorary Chaplain to the King is a military appointment, for serving regular and reserve chaplains in the British and some Commonwealth armed forces. However much of the text refers to Chaplains to the King, who are members of the Ecclesiastical Household of the Royal Household, and are civilians, usually senior parish priests. I do not believe that the article can be repaired. As an alternative to deletion it would have to be wholly rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncox001 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC); listed on the log at 21:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Christianity, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The inaccuracies can easily be ironed out but the topic is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mission sui iuris of Lunda[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can verify that this administrative unit existed according to official church sources, but that's it. Possibly it could be merged somewhere but I don't see how it is even vaguely notable considering the utter lack of secondary interest. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Angola. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apostolic Prefecture of Lower Congo where it is already mentioned. Nothing else to b3 said about it apparently. Mccapra (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WCSD-LP[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not many articles have been attempted to be prodded three times; in that sense alone, this AfD is long overdue. The article itself is a remnant of the looser standards in this topic area in the 2000s, but according to the talk page there was a failed prod that was followed by an A7 speedy deletion in 2007. It was recreated in 2009; a 2010 prod tagging was contested because of the prior article. (The contesting rationale notes that at the time, licensed radio stations are generally held to be notable, but with the caveat that consensus can change. In this topic area, that happened with this 2021 RfC; we now require significant coverage and cannot source solely to FCC records and other databases.) I just had to procedurally contest a third prod because of the prior prods. I had been considering a redirect to the list of radio stations in Pennsylvania as an alternative to deletion, and I still think that is the best course of action (I do not support retaining the article as it is), but the triple-prod means this is as much a procedural nomination as anything else. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Christianity, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeds of Hope Publishers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The organization does not appear to pass WP:GNG The only references not published by the organization itself is a trivial mention in the NYT and a profile of the editor, Katie Cook, in bpfna.org, who was (at the time) an editor of bpfna.org as well. While there is a list of articles under the "Further Reading" section, one of the articles was written by a student newspaper, one from Baptists Today, and the others all seem to be limited to the Waco Tribune-Herald. They are mostly from the 1990s- and I have been able to find no significant coverage since.

This is the second deletion debate this article will go through- but editors should note that the only two "keep" votes came from new accounts that did not edit anything but their own user page and the deletion discussion. While that has no bearing on the organization's notability, new Wikipedia editors will want to read the policies on canvassing and recruiting people off-Wiki before they contribute. (Unless you want to provide more sources- please, if you have them, I would like them very much) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Texas. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Full of primary sources and only 2 gnews hits which is surprising for an American organization. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick F. Cornell[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Book source seems to say about as much as an obituary would about each person described there. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and New Jersey. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a Newspapers.com search finds only passing mentions (generally as an officiant at a wedding or in ads for a school he assisted at.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, what there is are simply run of the mill mentions.TheLongTone (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Edwin Fulton[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet general notability guidelines and lacks sources. The one source the article does have is dubious as well. Samoht27 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Fiji. Samoht27 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination, excessively lacking proper sources. Noorullah (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per mom, no WP:GNG. Poorly written article, but with no sources outside of the article as well. Contributor892z (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:OR. The only source is a directory listing. When we have a page with only one source, it is tantamount to original research. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Found no source to defend, not notable. Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lodahl[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially an unsourced biography of a living person for nearly twenty years. WorldCat is not useful for establishing notability, yet it is the only source for the entire article. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Christianity. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Idaho, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary, independent coverage in either news outlets or the literature. Fails both WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPROF through a dearth of third-party coverage and lack of overall recognition within their field (no honours, chair, or nat. biog entry, significant contribution, etc). ——Serial Number 54129 19:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment I see that his book Shekhinah/Spirit attracted some attention though I couldn't say how influential it eventually proved. Mangoe (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being held in a library isn't notable, but could point towards notability. Unfortunately, I've tried and been unable to find "Shekhinah/spirit : divine presence in Jewish and Christian religion" book reviews. A zillion hits on where to buy the book, no proof of scholarly notice. I don't see AUTHOR being met. Gscholar and Jstor came up blank. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Noorullah (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again, I have to stress that having a single source is tantamount to being original research, which everyone knows we just don't do. Call it a day here. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradfield Abbey[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability, the one reliable source Is the one referenced on the page which makes it clear the charter refering to the abbey having been built is probably fraudulent. I can find no other historical source that references any abbey existing in Bradfield. Tim Landy (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Christianity, and England. Tim Landy (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Bradfield, Berkshire. I can't find anything on Heritage Gateway on this. There is a mention here but otherwise I can't fine anything significant. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested to Bradfield, Berkshire, or delete outright per WP:V. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (denomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Micro-denomination of three churches with no reliable sources to establish notability via significant coverage. All existing sources fail to establish notability:

Link - Primary Source
Link - Appears to be a reliable source with coverage on page 15, but note on page 2 that the author of the coverage on page 15 is/was a senior leader within the subject of the article and thus this source is not independent.
Link. Self-published source of questionable reliability, not updated for a decade.
Link Primary source
Link - Erroneously cited and fails verification. The citation describes as "Doctrines of the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church"; the actual title of the paper is different.
Link - Fails verification for notability; does not reference subject.
Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
Link - Primary source
Link - Primary source
Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages. Fails verification for notability.
Link - Primary source

Editors arguing for "Keep" in the 2022 non-consensus AfD discussion depended heavily on 2 and 5; however, as I've shown here, 2 is not an independent source for notability, and 5 fails verification. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Defunct micro-denomination that existed for less than 10 years. It is not included in any of the authoritative encyclopedic sources (e.g. Melton). Can find no sources to establish notability under GNG or NORG. Existing sources in the article are unreliable or unverifiable. My analysis follows:

Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages
Link - Primary source
Banner of Truth magazine. This magazine is not available online (see here) and thus this citation is unverifiable.
British Church Newspaper. Likewise unavailable online and thus unverifiable.
Link - Primary source
Link - Discussion board; user-generated content.
Link - Primary source
Link - Primary source
Link - Primary source
Link - Self-published primary source

During the 2006 AfD, which resulted in no consensus, those arguing for "keep" tended not to make policy-based arguments. Additionally, they specifically pointed to the British Church Newspaper and Banner of Truth Magazine citations as proving notability. After 18 years, however, these publications remain unavailable online (including in the Internet Archive) and thus cannot be verified. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Invalid reasoning. A source that is not online remains verifiable by a trip to a library. Dead-tree sources are perfectly legitimate. And a denomination being defunct really doesn't matter. If it was notable once, it remains notabvle. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the 2006 discussion, this is the full text in one of the dead-tree sources: "On January 13-14, 2006, a new Presbyterian denomination was formed. During delegate meetings in Philadelphia, PA, the body adopted the name Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (WPCUS). The founding churches came together because of perceived equivocation towards important biblical doctines and because of tolerance of excesses in contemporary worship in other Presbyterian denominations." Sounds like WP:TRIVIALMENTION to me. I've made every effort to verify its existence; however, the comprehensive Banner of Truth magazine archive does not include this citation (see page 99, where no such article is referenced in the April 2006 issue). The WP:BURDEN is on the editor who added the material to add a verifiable, reliable source, and this isn't. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waters of Mormon[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article doesn't meet wp:gng What little reference it does have is a passing mention used to describe a plot point. No secondary sources cover this topic in depth. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Before nominating the article for deletion, Big Money Threepwood deleted a list of sources that an earlier edit summary explained "can be used to expand the page". Also, I added the shortened note citations to "Thomas (2016)" that exist on the article and appear to have forgotten to actually add the book to the sources list: John Christopher Thomas, A Pentecostal Reads the Book of Mormon: A Literary and Theological Introduction (CPT Press, 2016). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There are plenty of sources available via GScholar. Central and Adams (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Book of Mormon places, I am not seeing the sort of significant coverage in independent sources which would indicate stand-alone notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike several other since-deleted articles on that amounted to trivia meaningfully sourceable only to the Book of Mormon, the Waters of Mormon's role as the setting of the Book of Mormon's expression of what Latter-day Saints consider their baptismal covenant has made it the subject of textual study and cultural reception of which there is coverage (Stott's identification of an intertext with Joseph Bellamy's preaching; Bolton connecting it to Anabaptism; Whitley's coverage of its appearance in poetry). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and close nomination -- This was nominated by a now-blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This congregation has no notability. St Helen's Church, Lincoln is grade II* listed and rightly has a separate article; Holy Cross Church has no claim to notability, and nor does the joint congregation which worships at the two churches. A merge proposal template was removed from the St Helen's article with no explanation, after a brief discussion of the proposed merge (propose, oppose from creator of both the articles, one further comment from proposer). I considered just redirecting this article to St Helen's but bring it here to get further eyes on the discussion. A Redirect to St Helen's Church, Lincoln would be my preferred outcome from this AfD. PamD 07:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. PamD 07:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to St Helen's Church, Lincoln or just redirect. There is mergeable content. The congregation are not notable for an article, per nom., but the joint use of this and another church by a single congregation is worth mention on the merge target page - it is the current use of this church. It is a small merge, but a merge nonetheless. The merge discussion has the page creator arguing for the notability of Holy Cross. I don't think those arguments pass muster, but they are not a reason to keep this page which is specifically about the joint congregation. A Holy Cross church article could be created although my view is that it would not meet notability requirements and should not be attempted without sufficient reliable secondary sourcing. I didn't see where the merge header was removed, but it clearly lacked visibility, so the discussion here is appropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy The article on St Helen's already includes "The church is joined with the nearby Holy Cross Church as the "Congregation of Holy Cross and St Helen's".", with a link to the parish website. Is that enough? The merge header was removed earlier today with the uninformative edit summary "Slight tweaks". PamD 09:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I see it now. Yes, on the basis the information is already there, I have unbolded my merge and bolded redirect instead in this edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree the two churches are linked and can be covered in St Helen's Church, Lincoln. There isn't a church called Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln, so that title as a redirect may be of limited use. For readers to find content on Holy Cross it would need a redirect page, titled "Holy Cross Church, Boultham" or such like. The main discussion point regarding a merge is whether there should be an infobox for each church, just for one of the churches or a combined one. Found brief local news reports on Holy Cross's opening in 1940, which can be used for additional factual content. None of the references currently in the article count towards notability and so far I haven't found feature length coverage. Rupples (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that one article is sufficient to cover both churches however it is accomplished. Esemgee (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Holy Cross church needs to be covered at all, except perhaps in a list of churches in Lincoln. It appears to have no claim to notability. PamD 13:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Cross is mentioned in Boultham and Wikiproject UKGEOG content guidelines for settlements say to note churches within their locality WP:UKTOWNS#Religious sites — it doesn't state the church has to be notable for inclusion. Rupples (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Churches mentioned in settlement articles don't have to have their own article. Maybe this article should be renamed and redirected to St Helen's Church. Esemgee (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Take it you mean 'redirect' rather than 'article' as the closing word in the first sentence?~~ Yes, agree with a retitle, and redirect to St Helen's but I've seen an admin state not to do this before the AfD closes. Suppose we'd recommend redirect under the current title then rename the redirect page. Rupples (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC). Strike, maybe misread. Rupples (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Notability not established for this church. The title of this article "Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln" is inaccurate and misleading. It leads one to think it's the name of a single church building. The website for the church is Boulton Parish and the home page begins The Congregation at Holy Cross and St. Helen's. We already have an article St Helen's Church, Lincoln where reliably sourced detail on Holy Cross can be added. It's simpler to delete this, add a section to St Helen's about Holy Cross and create a redirect page, (suggest Holy Cross, Boultham) than redirect this article's rather nonsensical title. Rupples (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples There's already a redirect, with categories, at Holy Cross Church, Lincoln, and that is listed in the dab page at Holy Cross Church#United Kingdom. OK, have now created Holy Cross Church, Boultham as a second redirect. Both currently pointing to this article, Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln, but if this is deleted or redirected they should both target St Helen's Church, Lincoln where the church gets a mention. PamD 16:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one name, one place, one church, one body. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to St Helen's Church, Lincoln, which bizarrely isn't even linked in the article. If there is anything worth merging, go ahead and save that bit, suitably cited, but apart from St Helen's there doesn't seem to be anything here worthy of note. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St Helen's Church, Lincoln. Changing from delete to redirect as a new, more aptly named redirect has been created. Doesn't require a formal merge as there's so little to merge that any reliably sourced content can be added to the redirect target separately, should anyone feel inclined. A separate heading is warranted for Holy Cross in the St Helen's article as reading through it's starting to get confusing which church the text relates to. There is further relevant material that can be added about Holy Cross, though insufficient coverage to establish notability. In any case, as the churches are linked it is better for context the two are combined in the article for the church whose notability is proven. Rupples (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rupples and Chiswick Chap. Mertbiol (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WHFL-CD[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in North Carolina#LPTV stations: It isn't quite the type of all-national programming service so many LPTVs are, but I'm not convinced this likely-run-of-the-mill religious station has much significant coverage either. Likely a remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Decision[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no references in the article and I can't find any reliable sources online covering the band. XabqEfdg (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. XabqEfdg (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Oklahoma. Skynxnex (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see plenty of non-RS, looks like they last put anything out in 2005, and their albums are still available via eBay. Not my area of expertise, but I suspect this might be saveable if someone can find reviews. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as they do have a staff written AllMusic bio here which states that their first album was released in 16 countries to considerable acclaim. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I dug for sources and did not find any reliable ones. I unfortunately think an Allmusic bio is not enough when not coupled with reviews. According to this page, there exists one review in HM Magazine (formerly Heaven's Metal Magazine), but that's a bit thin as well. Scene-wise, the lack of coverage is not unexpected either, seeing as thrash metal was long out of favour when this band started releasing. Geschichte (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gechichte. I also cannot find anything sufficint to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:NBAND Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find reliable sources on the subject. Yolandagonzales (talk) 19:57, 30 April 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 merge‎ to List of Book of Mormon places. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jershon[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wp:gng. This is an in universe location with little attention inside LDS circles, and none in independent reliable sources - especially no indepth coverage we could use to build an article Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Latter Day Saints. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 05:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Book of Mormon places. Doesn't seem like there's enough to make a notable stand-alone page from. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Book of Mormon places. Available secondary coverage of Jershon is better suited to summarization in Anti-Nephi-Lehies, for which Jershon is the setting. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:27, 28 April 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.

Faith Presbytery, Bible Presbyterian Church[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Micro-denomination with perhaps nine churches as of 2014, per a self-published source (citing other self-published sources) that is no longer available online. Citations are exclusively to primary sources, to self-published sources, or to outdated sources of questionable independence and reliability. Participants in the 2022 AfD discussion did not delve deeply into the validity of the sources cited as applied to WP:NORG, which I will do here:

[1]. Self-published source citing other self-published sources; not updated since 2014.
[2]. Self-published book; does not illuminate notability of subject, just reference one of its views and its existence.
[3]. Blog/opinion post; does not meet reliable source criteria for establishing notability.
[4]. Dead link with no archived version.
[5]. Book published by Redeeming the Time (RTT) Publications, which is the publishing arm of the subject and thus not independent of the subject.
[6]. Portuguese-language source; cannot tell if it is self-published. Regardless, it is not significant coverage and merely notes the existence of the subject.
[7]. OPC General Assembly minutes and thus disqualified as primary source.
[8]. Personal blog; self-published source.
[9] Newsletter published by Redeeming the Time (RTT) Publications, which is the publishing arm of the subject and thus not independent of the subject.

I cannot identify any other independent, secondary, reliable sources that verify the notability of this denomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An editor has updated the link in footnote 4 to a live link. It's here -- it appears self-published but has no author listed. It appears impossible to validate its reliability, and moreover it only mentions the subject of the article in a single trivial mention on page 96. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pentecostal Mission[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG - I could not find significant coverage of this church in reliable sources independent of the subject. HenryMP02 (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, Sri Lanka, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep am finding some reliable sources coverage such as this, I haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep have added references and is a century old church founded in 1923 feel the resources will be offline. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I see where you are coming from. This is probably a case where the sources do exist, but may be difficult to find initially. HenryMP02 (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 27 April 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 merge‎ to Montasola. Consensus is against retention as a separate article Star Mississippi 02:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Maria Murella, Montasola[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Initially proded with the reason 'This church is not notable enough (WP:GNG). Doesn't even exist in Italian Wikipedia'. I do think that English Wikipedia notability guidelines are among the strictest out of all Wikipedias, namely because English is a common internet language. Therefore, I am not sure if it can pass, given that no other Wikipedia (even Italian) has this. Per WP:NBUILD:

Buildings 'may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Also, are sources only in Italian (or only in a language other than English) allowed? JuniperChill (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. JuniperChill (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately, Italian heritage listing is not great, but in most other western countries a medieval or Baroque church would undoubtedly be heritage listed and would therefore pass WP:GEOFEAT so I think this is certainly notable. Yes, of course non-English sources are acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here? Although this Wikipedia is likely the strictest out of all, we somehow allow special and very old buildings here even though there is only one source, and that is only in Italian. So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable? This article may not be meet GNG and it is a very obscure place. This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine. Ie i dont see it as notable. This can also apply to Houghton Mill where it is a National Trust site, but only has a source and very few people know it (I just looked up random NT sites that are not very popular) so should be gone. JuniperChill (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable? Yes, of course they are, per WP:GEOFEAT. Houghton Mill is a Grade II*-listed building. I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here? Yup. This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine. Ie i dont see it as notable. That's not really relevant to Wikipedia notability. Others do. This article could certainly do with more sourcing, but buildings of this age are definitely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Romanesque church probably built on the ruins of a temple, Roman age or earlier. It means a 2000 years or more old building. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Montasola. With deep respect for the experienced editors that have previously contributed to this discussion, I can't find myself agreeing with the Keep !votes above:

WP:NBUILDING specifically states that Buildings ... may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability (my emphasis). The Keep !votes above recognise that Santa Maria Murella might have historic/architectural importance, but ignore the lack of coverage, which is a case exactly anticipated by the relevant notability guideline here. Nobody has presented any "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources", and the best I could find was an entry from an office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy, which I'm not sure whether we can regard as "third-party".
Even if notability is met, WP:NOPAGE suggests that if covering a topic as part of a parent article would improve readability, we need not have a standalone article. It seems that the existing sources have little to say that can sustain a lengthy article on Santa Maria Murella: the church and its history can be adequately summarised in a few paragraphs at Montasola. Seeing as Santa Maria Murella, Montasola claims that the church...was located at the site of the Roman city of Laurum, which seems to be its most important feature according to previous !votes, the church is probably easier understood in the context of Montasola's history. In my experience, this is not uncommon for non-notable churches (and let's be honest: many places have churches that date back several centuries, though the current buildings might not be the original ones).
As an alternative to deletion, a merge allows the preservation of the page history should significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources emerge per WP:NBUILDING.

I note that Rococo1700 created articles for two other churches in the town (Santi Pietro e Tommaso, Montasola, San Michele Arcangelo, Montasola), which have nothing to support their notability except an entry on the local council's website. On their userpage, they write that their aim for new entries is to try to have at least two "independent" sources, so I suspect this collection of articles results from inexperienced editing, and may also need to be reviewed. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, yes, I think articles containing only non-English-language sources are perfectly fine (cf. WP:NONENG). Here's one I made earlier. The non-availability of English-language sources suggests that the topic might not be the most interesting for English-language readers, but it doesn't detract from the topic's notability. Cf. WP:INTERESTING: Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals and our readers and potential readers include everyone on the planet. Any subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Montasola, until such time as more/better sources turn up (in whatever language).Ingratis (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source: Italian, gives details on the church's history.[4] Rupples (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source is from a office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy. The homepage explicitly makes clear that the project is a census of Italian churches, creat[ing] a national database of Italian churches. Your mileage may vary, but to me, this doesn't constitute an independent source, and consequently it doesn't contribute to significant coverage or notability. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Montasola I agree with IgnatiusofLondon that as a separate article this will at best be a stub. The only sources I can find are mentions in sources that are essentially lists of churches in Italy. I also think that information seekers are better served to encounter what little data there is in the context of the Montasola article. Note that the Montasola article itself is only a few sentences, not surprising since it is a small town of ~420 population. The Italian WP article has quite a bit of history of the place but none of it is referenced so we can't even make use of that, and the church is not mentioned in that article. Lamona (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested to Montasola. There is too little to support four or more stubs about a small commune off the tourist track. Also, it would fail my long-standing standards for churches, having only one factor for notability, its age. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 29 April 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.

KRLB-LD[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough SIGCOV in Tri-Cities paper. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed fundamentalism[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an ill-defined religious "movement". I doubt anyone identifies themselves as a Reformed fundamentalist. That's not necessarily fatal, but makes it harder to identify what the group is. You can google "Reformed fundamentalism" and find lots of hits, but many of them will be using it as a pejorative and foil for something else. I think it is possible that a phenomenon called "Reformed fundamentalism" exists as something that could be defined using reliable independent sources, but it would be difficult and this article does not even begin to attempt it. I think the current Christian fundamentalism page appears to do this quite well for that group, most of which would also not self-identify. But I think there are zero independent reliable sources in this article (even Packer is not independent), so I think the best course is WP:TNT. The article is original research sourced mostly to different groups and their beliefs, almost none of which identify themselves as "Reformed fundamentalists." The closest would be Packer's Fundamentalism and the Word of God, since Packer would identify as Reformed and wrote a book on fundamentalism. But even there Packer was writing a polemic to a broader audience than the Reformed world; he was not arguing for "Reformed fundamentalism" but Christian fundamentalism. Jfhutson (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the term is in use in the scholarly literature. The page may well need work but I'm not sure it is bad enough for WP:TNT JMWt (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it really is a thing - particularly with the Bible Presbyterian Church and the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster - but the article isn't very good. St Anselm (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there independent reliable sources linking these to a "Reformed fundamentalist" movement? -- JFHutson (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It looks like this might close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)[edit]

Categories for discussion[edit]

Christian religious leaders: further follow-up required, see Category talk:Religious leaders#Clergy categories

Miscellaneous[edit]