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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Christianity. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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

Easter in the Balkans

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

Reads a lot like AI slop with many weasel words and is very similar to the Romanian article that is also being AfD'ed. It also incorporates AI images. Laura240406 (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Topic seems obviously notable. Why can’t it be fixed? Hyperbolick (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete this essay. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it is clearly WP:CGC for the purpose of edit farming. This could also fall under WP:U5, in which case the editor should be blocked from editing. JTZegers (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 papal conclave papabili

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

See discussion for previous conclave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave. Lists like these are highly speculative and barely deserve mention in other articles, and certainly do not deserve their own article. This does not pass the WP:CRYSTALBALL WP:10YEARTEST. It's always contain by its very nature WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The argument will be made that people are looking for this information, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. In two weeks this article will mean nothing. There will not be any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE after the conclave finishes. If anything it should have some candidates in prose at 2025 papal conclave, or maybe a table at Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And for context: consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this, and if anything, it should be in prose, in the article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Religion, and Christianity. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Subject is receiving massive attention in the global press/media and easily passes GNG. It will almost certainly merit inclusion long term, either as a stand alone article or being merged into the main article on the conclave. How can you have a serious article about a papal conclave w/o discussing the various possible successors? Beyond which, as a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE, the vast majority of those coming to Wikipedia over the conclave are going to be looking for information about the various papabili. Removing this kind of well sourced content would be a serious disservice to our readers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: This sort of list is definitely WP:USEFUL, but almost certainly not encyclopedic. As stated in my !vote below, this is above all else a matter of original research in compiling what boils down to Wikipedia's own curated list of frontrunners, which is not something we should have as an encyclopedia. If readers want to read about potential frontrunners (which, I stress, can be no more than speculative), they should simply peruse their news source of choice. The only encyclopedic list we can curate already exists at Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: to me, the claim by User:Darth Stabro that "consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this" is only in the context of the papabili section of the 2025 papal conclave article itself; there was never any consensus about some speculative table existing elsewhere in Wikipedia on that particular talk page. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But Delete. Let me copy what I said about the problems with the list of papabili in the Papabili section of the 2013 papal conclave article in Talk:2025 papal conclave#Who is eligible to be listed as Papabili? since it equally applies to the article here: The point of papabili sections and articles and lists of papabili in the papal conclave articles is to document which cardinals the media considers to be likely candidates for being the next pope. We should require reliable secondary sources on the topic of the media's papabili, not just links to random media outlets' lists of papabili. That is, any cardinal X can be included in a list of the media's papabili on Wikipedia if a reliable secondary source says something along the lines of "the media said that cardinal X is a likely candidate in [YEAR] papal conclave". The problem with the list of the media's papabile in this article is that none of the references are reliable secondary sources about the media's papabile; it's all just synthesis / original research using primary sources. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Ad Orientem. Times have changed and we are getting way more hits on the article than 2013. Papabili are discussed everywhere and hence, it's not OR or SYNTH. There will not be any coverage after conclave itself is a projected prediction and hence COMMONSENSE takes precedence, IMO. — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 papal conclave as WP:RECENTISM not warranting splitting. After the conclave and new pope, the papabili list would no longer be actual and of limited interest IMO. Brandmeister^talk 08:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave: No other papal conclave has an article dedicated to its papabili. If no other conclave's papabili have merited their own article, despite having notable papabili, then this should not be any different. I cannot see this information being pertinent once a new Pope is selected. WP:NOTNEWS Flangalanger (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has enough media attention and merging it back into the main article would continue the war Braganza (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i am fine with merging it into Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave Braganza (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge): the main problem with such a list isn't that papabili are not notable in and of themselves, it's simply that there is no subjective way we could determine who counts as one. As stated above, it would be blatantly original research for us to handpick sources to use and then impose an arbitrary threshold on the number of sources (e.g. seven). What this means is that this article is basically Wikipedia's own curated list of frontrunners. This is inappropriate because of WP:OR and because we are not a newspaper. For avoidance of doubt, I don't object to talking about papabili at all, simply that all we need is a paragraph in 2025 papal conclave saying: "news source X listed [...] as papabili, and news source Y also listed [...]" – that is as much as we are allowed to do as an encyclopedia. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If a merge is what is decided on, I would propose as a target not 2025 papal conclave, but Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. That is where a similar table existed prior to the creation of this article, and the existence of a table has already been rehashed several times and shot down in favor of prose at Talk:2025 papal conclave ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 12:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete I am not convinced that media speculation about who might be pope is of lasting interest. And as we all know, "he who goes into the conclave a pope comes out a cardinal." Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep if it can't exist on the 2025 conclave page, and it can't exist on the papabile page, it has to exist somewhere. Scuba 14:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to exist somewhere? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it was only removed from the Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave page to create this page. So it would be false to say it wasn't existing anywhere. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just stating that nobody is going to care about these people in the future is crystalballing and not a reason to delete the article. Cortador (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2025 papal conclave - While the nomination seems to be WP:CRYSTAL at best, I do agree that it would make more sense to put the table in the article itself, rather than a separate page. JTZegers (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and oppose merge if deleted. Section was already removed from the 2025 papal conclave page after discussion, but receives enough coverage for it's own page Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I don't see why the 2013 page was deleted either honestly.★Trekker (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis is pure speculation and the list is generated out of pure synthesis. Carbon case of WP:NOT. None of the presented keep arguments is supported by policy.T v x1 07:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes I'm baffled by the 'shifting sands' of notability arguments here. Sourced articles from a number of different sources about the selection of the next Pope shouldn't be the target of deletion. Surely this article is exactly what Wikipedia should be collating? Current, important, notable: it passes the "Pokémon test". But maybe it's just the state of Wikipedia now, where deletion is the standard and building an encyclopedia has become unfashionable. doktorb _words^deeds 07:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep WP:SYNTH is moot; our sources are journalism and gambling. WP:UNDUE is moot; we have one cited 2015 peer-reviewed study (Forecasting the outcome of closed-door decisions; evidence from 500 years of papal conclaves) and one 2020 book. And Fantapapa. And a plethora of citations. WP:Recentism, WP:NotNews, and WP:CrystalBall are moot; historically some papabili carry over. Our criteria variously conflict, hence the circular firing squad of recent days. That said, we can't not use the data available; you dance with them that brungs ya. kencf0618 (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2025 papal conclave : I don't really see why it has to be its own page. If there isn't a separate page for the papabili in the other conclaves, then where's the point in this page existing? Just because it's the latest one doesn't necessarily mean it's more important. HOPPIO [talk] 14:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (to supplement my !vote above): The problem with this article isn't that papabili aren't notable; they definitely are. A good reason why we shouldn't have a list of them is because there is simply no objective inclusion criteria for the cardinals who should appear here. WP:LISTCRITERIA states that the criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. Simply put, even with the current state of this list, there are many other cardinals for whom we could easily find more than seven references, and we can never be sure that we have listed them all. In my opinion, this list doesn't belong in an encyclopedia but in a newspaper, and a newspaper we are not. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 papal conclave per the merge comments above. Sundayclose (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Church and Conversion

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

There do not appear to be any neutral, third-party sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the whole book about him there is sigcov for a solid two pages [1] also [2] Contemporary reviews [3] [4]... there appears to be a lot more [5]. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: SIGCOV in varied RSs clearly evident. Looking at PARAKANYAA's assessment above, I think we should consider a speedy keep. Somewhat unrelated, but article is written quite poorly. @Terot: please consider spending more time in the drafting space before publishing an article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article only describes neutrally the content of the book, giving light about the author's central ideas. This is useful plainly to explain Chesterton's thought in his other works. I don't see how it would be reasonably necessary to show the aftermath of the book, or the possible flaws of his thinking in an encyclopedia article merely about one of his more personal autobiographical works, just to keep it in Wikipedia instead of deletion. Besides that, there are lots of neutral sources in various Chesterton biographies which will give more points of view. (Terot (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Well... if the book did have some sort of impact (negative or otherwise) then that would be something worth including in the article, as long as it was neutrally written and properly sourced. If it was something more discussed as an example then a long section about how people responded to Chesterton's work would be ill placed here - that would be a main article type of deal. But a sentence or two along the lines of "Historians and critics of his work saw it as an example of Chesterton's larger views on Catholicism... yadda yadda" would be fine.

I'll post on the article's talk page so that I don't derail the convo here too much. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the coverage provided above, it has also been reviewed in New Blackfriars (here) and The Furrow (here). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KryukovRM

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

No evidence of notability, WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE. Paradoctor (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7. Article says itself that "no major media outlets have profiled KryukovRM as of yet". -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article created by fan; subject has no notability. This would have been a suitable nomination for PROD. ❤History Theorist❤ 22:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Total lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bagroiser

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

This looks like a hoax. Completely unsourced, and searches on gbooks, JSTOR, advanced google search, news, and more bring up literally nothing. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and North Macedonia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It hits in an Iranian dictionary for some reason [6] I suppose that's close-ish to North Macedonia, but not quite... I'm not sure what this unsourced stub is. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Won't claim to know every tradition associated with Marian feasts, but I've never seen this one before. A bit of Googling coaxed their lazy AI to claim that it had something to do with the Assumption, but that's absolutely nothing that aligns with this subject online. The only other reference I could find to this was the Wikidata item, created in 2014, so after the article. I don't know if it's a hoax, but it's definitely not notable based on English-language sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given it's a non-English speaking festival I'm thinking there may be alternative spellings. The closest I can find is "Успение на Пресвета Богородица, Uspenie na Presveta Bogorodica" also celebrated in August and celebrating Mary (source:Public holidays in North Macedonia) - which is covered by Assumption of Mary page. SallyRenee (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minthis Hills

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

Largely unsourced and primarily promotional article about a resort/golf course in Cyprus. Created by a WP:SPA. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG and WP:NGEO. Existing references do not adequately demonstrate the historical significance of the site's monastery, which is mentioned only in passing, and largely without references, in what appears to be an attempt to justify the travelogue article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Golf and Cyprus. – The Grid (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tai Po Methodist School

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

No refs on the page. Nothing to suggest this junior school meets the criteria for inclusion JMWt (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Hong Kong. JMWt (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything besides a directory entry provided by the school. It exists, but isn't inherently notable. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per the nom. No significant coverage or reliable sources with independent coverage WP:N. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Tai Po District#Primary schools (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the school is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: JMWt (talk · contribs), TheDeafWikipedian (talk · contribs), and HilssaMansen19 (talk · contribs), would you support a redirect to List of schools in Tai Po District#Primary schools under Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion? Cunard (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that is better. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Tai Po District#Primary schools as suggested above per WP:ATD. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see the article has strong potential for keeps, as this article may have been an unfinished translation from a Chinese Wikipedia article with the same name- search for (Chinese: 大埔循道衛理小學; pinyin: Dà bù xún dào wèi lǐ xiǎoxué)

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A7%E5%9F%94%E5%BE%AA%E9%81%93%E8%A1%9B%E7%90%86%E5%B0%8F%E5%AD%B8

and even just a quick MTL with Google, will show lots of citations supporting it more than english ver. here, fellow wikipedians more familiar with local Hongkong news and sites can help out confirm their RS.Villkomoses (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Alberto Capella

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDEPTH. Absolutiva (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being the only prisoner of an entire country for several years is fairly unique. There is substantial in depth coverage from a quick seatch, and there is what appears to be sigcov in many books, not just news [7]. The news coverage also appears to be indepth. The 2021 piece is fairly indepth and a decent refutation of it being NOTNEWS. He was a diplomat, a fairly significant position, so there also appears to be coverage on that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per PARAKANYAA analysis, the subject is notable enough. Svartner (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daughters of Mary, Mother of Our Savior

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

The subject clearly does not meet the WP:GNG (see WP:NCHURCH).

As far as I can see, no reliable indepedent secondary or tertiary source discusses the group as a main topic, but always WP:PASSING (in this case, due to a legal battle).

Therefore, I believe this article should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, United States of America, and New York. Veverve (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (!vote changed to keep, see below) I agree it was the right decision to start an AfD discussion, as besides the music citations of the article which I added some time back, there are only three non-primary sources used in the article, being [2], [3], and [4], all relating to the lawsuit. Just doing a brief Google search, however, I found 1, 2, 3, 4 (4 unblocked) these potential citations without even going on to newspaper.com yet, which gives me some confidence. I have finals ongoing right now, but as soon as I have some free time, I'll give it a shot at saving the page. Cheers! Johnson524 04:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are WP:PASSING mentions.

The first one relates to a kidnapping, the second one again relates to the legal battle, the third one has two sentences from one of these being interviewed, and the fourth one is describing that they are ice-skating.

So, as I said, no reliable indepedent secondary or tertiary source discusses the group as a main topic, i.e. with a significant coverage of the topic (WP:GNG). Veverve (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just completed a deep dive on all the sources I know to check (Newspaper.com, Newspaperarchive, and JSTOR), and I feel confident enough to !vote keep. My end assessment is that they're not incredibly important, but have enough coverage to warrant an article. As pointed out above, the surface level Google search only revealed some WP:PASSING mentions (why I said "potential citations") that don't establish notability. However, the deeper search revealed the following SIGCOV citations:
- Joyful in their habits Pg. 2 Pg. 3 (Pamela Parker, Stormi Greener, Star Tribune, May 27, 2006) All-around great source
- Inside the Covent (Jonathan Mandell, Newsday, Jul 11, 1988) Written because of the 1988 kidnapping case, but dives into SIGCOV of the convent as a whole
- Church finds traditions preserve reverence (Karen Vance, The Cincinnati Enquirer, Jul 8, 2003) More about the church they're a part of than the nuns, but the two are closely linked
- Skating nuns release Christmas albums (Paul Clark, The Cincinnati Enquirer, Nov 26, 2006) Short, but full of good info about their music and an award-winning photo of them

Along with more citations covering some of major stories they've been involved in:
- Nun kidnapped by family members (UPI, Jun 27, 1988)
- Nuns: Santa Fe Art Dealer Conned US (Kathaleen Roberts, Albuquerque Journal, Feb 20, 2009)
- Seller's remorse or fraudulent transaction? (Anne Constable, The Santa Fe New Mexican, Feb 21, 2009)
- SF gallery loses fight over woodcut prints (Jackie Jadrnak, Albuquerque Journal, Jan 9, 2012)
- Dealer Didn't Cheat Nuns (Mark Oswald, Albuquerque Journal, Jan 11, 2012)
- N.Y. jury rejects nuns' claims against Santa Fe gallery owner (Anne Constable, The Santa Fe New Mexican, Jan 11, 2012)
- And apparently they like to be photographed a lot :)

I won't be able to update the article with these new citations yet because I have two finals tomorrow that I really need to study for, but I hope this search was enough to keep the article in the meantime before I can begin editing on like Thursday. Cheers! Johnson524 08:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

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

This was proposed for deletion by Catfurball (talk · contribs) last year, with the rationale When I did a Google search I found almost no third-party references and those that I found were only trivial, this proves to me that this article is not notable. That was contested by someone else who believed this was better suited to an AfD, but that did not happen at the time — instead, Catfurball today started a second PROD nomination. PROD is a one-and-done process, so I procedurally contested it with the intent of bringing the article here. While I agree with the prior deprodder that this would be best suited to a discussion, I am neutral and have no other opinion here; this is as much a procedural nomination as anything else. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I did another Google search of this article and still there are almost no third-party references that talk about it. Those that I found were only trivial, so this proves to me that this article fails WP:ORG. Catfurball (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC) To any administrator that closes this discussion you will have to delete all of the redirects that are connected to it first. Catfurball (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment Some of this needs to be merged into Seventh-day Adventist Church#Structure_and_polity as it is barely mentioned there, but I would agree there is no reason to have a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are numerous scholarly books discussing this topic on Google Books. Jahaza (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly doubt that. There may be discussions of the history of the SDAs which involve this body, but I doubt very much that there is all that much on the conference itself. Mangoe (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Land's Historical Dictionary of the Seventh-Day Adventists (2nd edition, Rowman and Littlefield, 2015) has a 690 word article just on the General Conference as a whole[8]]. There are also numerous additional articles on related topics, such as individual sessions of the General Conference.
R. Clifford Jones's James K. Humphrey and the Sabbath-Day Adventists (U of Mississippi Press, 2006)[9] writes quite a bit about the racial policy of the General Conference and its establishment within the Conference of a "North American Negro Department".
Stefan Höschele's Adventist Interchurch Relations: A Study in Ecumenics (V&R Unipress, a Brill imprint, 2022)[10] covers the ecumenical policy of the General Conference.
Laura Lee Vance, Seventh-Day Adventism in Crisis: Gender and Sectarian Change in an Emerging Religion (U of Illinois Press, 1999)[11] has a discussion of the General Conference as a whole and then info on various policies of the General Conference over time on gender issues. --Jahaza (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge agree with Mangoe for key info here to be merged into Seventh-day Adventist Church#Structure_and_polity to preserve content of article at least, as the citations cited does seem too closely associated with the subject, for it to be standalone.Villkomoses (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I 100% agree with User:Mangoe that we do not need a separate article. Catfurball (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For engagement with Jahaza's suggested sources, added after the most recent merge !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Ahlquist

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

Subject does not seem to meet any of the qualifications in WP:ACADEMIC. Perhaps meets WP:BASIC but I don't think so; he has been interviewed as an expert on G.K. Chesterton, but that's not really significant coverage on Ahlquist himself.

Additionally, article was created by User:AmChestertonSoc, likely undisclosed paid editing; article overall is written like a WP:RESUME or WP:PROMOTION, and relies on primary sourcing. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Minnesota. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is going to pass WP:Author. There's also some extensive (negative) writing about him[12] Jahaza (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch on that article - I'm not sure why that didn't pop up in my Google News search. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 20:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tried my hand at cleaning up some of the promotional writing (could still do some more probably). And I would like clarification on how he meets WP:AUTHOR Moritoriko (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's fewer book reviews than I expected to find. Jahaza (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shekinah TV

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep the article and improve the references. Channel is available in most DTH (except SUN) and most Cable aggregators.
Anish Viswa 04:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the points raised: Availability doesn't satisfy WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage in independent sources (see WP:NEXIST). The suggestion to improve sources falls under WP:HEY; the key is demonstrating such sources actually exist, which the WP:BEFORE search did not confirm. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the scroll.in piece referenced in the article does contain some analysis such as suggesting the tv channel is set up to promote positive news rather than the negative stories that have surfaced about the church, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: WP:GNG typically requires evidence from multiple independent, reliable sources providing such coverage to establish notability, or perhaps exceptionally deep coverage in a single source. My WP:BEFORE search didn't uncover other sources offering this level of independent analysis, suggesting this might be an isolated mention rather than evidence of wider significant coverage. Therefore, I maintain that the subject currently fails WP:GNG based on the overall sourcing found. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV. Although mentioned a little more in-depth in 2019 here and here, as well as in passing in 2024, I can not find any other sources at this point that can support a claim of notability. Furthermore, there are limited reliable sources that cover this channel, with the exception of The New Indian Express.— Angelita dela Rosa 22:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Upon searching for the subject, I found the following- A great mention here - [13], A great one here too - [14], and A little mention here:[15]. Therefore, no doubt about the credibility of the channel. The channel do have some WP: NOTABILITY and WP: RELIABILITY too but not significant enough. It does not have any more reliable sources at a direct search either. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness (TV channel)

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep the article and improve the references. Channel is available in most DTH and most Cable aggregators.
Anish Viswa 04:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the points raised: Availability doesn't satisfy WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage in independent sources (see WP:NEXIST). The suggestion to improve sources falls under WP:HEY; the key is demonstrating such sources actually exist, which the WP:BEFORE search did not confirm. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the addition of the official website as a source, while potentially useful for verifying basic facts per WP:ABOUTSELF, does not contribute towards establishing notability under WP:GNG. GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and an organization's own website is inherently not independent (WP:IS). The core issue raised in the nomination – the lack of such independent coverage found during the WP:BEFORE search – remains unaddressed. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per total absence of sources. Svartner (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last attempt to reach some kind of quorum.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant coverage or reliability as perfectly mentioned by the nom including WP:BEFORE. Channel does exist but no great significance in terms of WP:Notability. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, channel does exist because of the following sources -

[16], [17], and this one too - [18] but no independent coverage. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

No articles proposed for deletion at this time

Categories for discussion

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

Miscellaneous