Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion

Points of interest related to History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Religion. 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:

1. 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.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Religion|~~~~}} 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 Religion.

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/Religion/archive

Antisemitism in Columbia University

Antisemitism in Columbia University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Created by a now banned sock. Mostly just a list of vaguely related incidents. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Ethnic groups, Education, Schools, Religion, Judaism, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You have at least three things going on here: 1) Historic antisemitism at ivy league schools, which have plenty of RS'es 2) current protest events being alternatively branded as anti-Zionist or antisemitic, also covered in a lot of RS'es but as current events rather than historical reflection, and 3) commentaries connecting the two. I don't see how we can avoid covering this, even if the ultimate focus needs to be bigger than Columbia and the ultimate title needs to be different. An AfD may be a good place to start such a discussion, but I doubt it will end up resolved well here. Jclemens (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, the protests themselves are already being covered at 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Some parts of this page might be merged to 2024_Columbia_University_pro-Palestinian_campus_occupation#Allegations_of_antisemitism. Or they might be used to cover the alleged recent wave of antisemitism in multiple US universities, not just Columbia. However, given the framing of the subject of the page (i.e. it even covers 20th century), it seems to stand as a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Baitussalam

Jamia Baitussalam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Mostly sourced to dubious sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, Education, Schools, Religion, Islam, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm glad to hear your acknowledgment of GVS as a dubious source. I fully agree that this promotional page should be removed, as it clearly fails to meet WP:N. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not acknowledge no such thing (I said mostly dubious), even if GVS is a valid source, it still does not meet notability criteria. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick F. Cornell

Frederick F. Cornell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails

• 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]

Lifechanyuan International Family Society

Lifechanyuan International Family Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article has had zero independent sources cited since it was created six years ago. I am unable to find any significant discussion of the organization in reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 01:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Canada. ... discospinster _talk 01:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete' There's a little bit out there on this company, but not from reliable sources. I can't see the full text of the Martin Boewe doctoral thesis; if it has RS citations perhaps that could save this article, but where those citations would come from is anyone's guess. As it is, it's possibly eligible for CSD G11 (blatant promotion).

  keep per

  WP:HEY rewriting of article based on sources from @Cunard Oblivy (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Lifechanyuan started from Zimbabwe when Xuefeng lived there and the 1st Second Home was built in Yunnan China so most of the theory(Lifechanyuan values) and introduction articles are in Chinese, with only a small portion of its theory and introductory articles translated into English, that's why the sources of the information is difficult to find.

  Dr. Martin Boewe and his wife visited the 4th branch of the Second Home in 2012, during which they had an interview with founder Xuefeng, here are the links for his interview （1-3）:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZg4JWQwCzw&t=151s

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKQ3e1_wjgs&t=17s

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaiwPsSqt3k&t=360s

  It is imperative to accurately convey what Lifechanyuan truly represents to the world, without misunderstanding or misleading the public. As a member of Lifechanyuan for nearly 18 years, I aim to share the truth based on the past 16 years of practice of the Second Home, spanning from China to Canada. Tongxincao (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If there are Chinese language secondary sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, then you should offer them up here. A YouTube interview with the founder is not going to do it. Oblivy (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The more I think about this, the more I think there should be an article. But not this article. I found a single WP:RS article from the New York Times in 2014[1] but it's paywalled. Somewhere there's an interesting follow-up story to be told. Probably not one for Wikipedia until that story gets published but someone feel free to surprise me.

  The article creator @Snewman8771 is a SPA which did just three things: create the article, wikilink to an article on intentional communities, and then two years later try to create an article about East Turkistan Republican Party which was declined.[2].

  @Tongxincao your account was created on the same day in 2015 as @Snewman8771. He started editing in 2018 and then stopped, and you didn't start until 2023. [3][4]. Can you explain? Oblivy (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was in China from 2015 to 2022, during which I have very limited access to WIKIPEDIA, and our communities in Chins were always under monitor, so I was quite careful to get access to google and facebook etc. Besides I am not familiar with the rules and how do people add new items on Wikipedia, I think put a brief introduction for Lifechanyuan will not be a big problem for Snewman8771. So we didn't pay much attention on it as we are focused on the community establishment and safe existence in China at that time.

  In Nov 2022, I came to Canada and after settlement, we plan to develop the society with our founder and members together. We are looking for some volunteers to come and help our work in Canada，so the introduction of society here in WIKIPEDIA is important and must be true and clear. Tongxincao (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The purpose of Wikipedia is not to introduce societies and organizations to the rest of the world, it is to document things that are already written about in reliable, third-party sources. Furthermore, some of the previous content in the article was highly promotional in tone, which makes it seem like you are trying to use Wikipedia's popularity to recruit new members. ... discospinster _talk 23:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the reply @

  the conflct of interest rules as you have a close relationship with this organization.

  Can you clarify whether you were involved in the edits by @Snewman8771? How did it come that both accounts were registered on the same day? Oblivy (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'm uncertain about the detailed requirements of Wikipedia, and how reliable second sources are defined, but information displayed on it should be based on facts, avoiding conveying misinformation. I believe that is a fundamental rule. There are very few reliable second sources of Lifechanyuan in English, as it is a small group rooted in China, and only a few members are proficient in English. I can gather some sources in Chinese to verify the information, including English sources from Ecovillage network newsletters or reports from our sister communities, although some of their links may have expired or changed (though I have the PDF or JPG files). As you may know, the media in China is controlled by the government, and reports related to religion, belief, etc., including Lifechanyuan, are forbidden from being published. This has been ongoing for many years.

  Lifechanyuan is based on all articles written by founder Xuefeng since 2001, totaling over 3000 articles. Only a small part of it has been translated into English, and it is not well-known to the public.

  Here are some Chinese and English websites:

  www.lifelvzhou.org

  www.lifecosmos.org

  https://www.facebook.com/chanyuancelestials

  https://www.lifechanyuan.org

  https://www.smcyinternationalfamily.org

  The source of the article I used to edit the introduction of the Second Home life mode is: (you might need to register to see) http://lifelvzhou.org/bbs/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2937&highlight=%C8%CB%C0%E0%D0%C2%C9%FA%BB%EE

  Snewman8771 joined Lifechanyuan and became a member in 2018, his member name is Kasi Celestial. In China, access to some internet platforms is restricted, making it difficult for us to reach out to Wikipedia or Facebook, besides the rule for editing WIKIPEDIA looks quite complicated for us. Snewman8771 offered to help edit, but as a new member, he was only familiar with a brief history and didn't fully understand our values and information. Due to communication challenges, we were unable to clarify, so we left it as it was. Now, I would like to revise and present it accurately to the public. Tongxincao (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why not just ask them ?? https://www.facebook.com/lifechanyuaninternationalfamily/ or https://www.smcyinternationalfamily.org 2405:9800:B910:819F:8F75:E8E3:1E34:197D (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
  reliable sources
  .
  1. Levin, Dan (2014-03-12). "Communism Is the Goal at a Commune, but Chinese Officials Are Not Impressed". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-03-24. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

     The article notes: "Members of this idyllic utopian commune tucked away in the mountains of southwest China share an agrarian life that would probably have delighted Chairman Mao: Every day they volunteer six hours to work the fields, feed their jointly owned chickens and prepare enough food to fill every belly in the community. The bounty of their harvest is divided equally and apparently without strife, part of a philosophy that emphasizes selflessness and egalitarian living over money and materialism. “What we’re doing here is basically communism,” said Xue Feng, 57, the soft-spoken founder of Shengmin Chanyuan, or New Oasis for Life, whose 150 members include illiterate peasants and big-city corporate refugees. “People do what they can and get what they need.”"

  2. Sigley, Gary (2016). "The Mountain Changers: Lifestyle Migration in Southwest China". Asian Highlands Perspectives. 40: 240–241.
     ISSN 1835-7741. Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books
     .

     The journal notes: "In Lincang Prefecture, a rural subtropical area in southwest Yunnan near the borders of Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam, a group of 150 people from different walks of life came together to create the Shengming chanyuan 'New Oasis for Life Commune' (Levin 2014). This Buddhist inspired community sought to create a self-sustaining and spiritual alternative to what they regard as an alienating and materialistic society found in the sprawling cities of modern China. As is discussed further below, these people are drawing upon a long Chinese tradition of escape to the mountains for the purposes of solitude, meditation, and respite. What is interesting about the New Oasis instance is the choice of location. To have created such a community in Lincang before 1978, or even before 1949, would have been extremely difficult. Lincang is a border region that for most of its history has been inhabited by various non-Han minorities. It was a remote and often dangerous place for the unwary visitor, a place that James C Scott (2010) regards as part of a larger highland zone he calls "Zomia" that for much of history was beyond the immediate reach of centralized states. But times have changed and the once "remote" and "dangerous" places have now been made "accessible" and "tame." Unfortunately for the members of this community, the local authorities looked upon this religiously inspired endeavor with great skepticism and used various measures to make them disband."

  3. Introvigne, Massimo (2022-01-01). "Religión, "sectas" y control social en la China de Xi Jinping" [Religion, "sects" and social control in Xi Jinping's China]. Revista Internacional de Estudios Asiáticos [International Journal of Asian Studies] (in Spanish). 1 (1).
     doi:10.15517/riea.v1i1.49606. Archived from the original
     on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

     The article notes: "En la última parte del artículo, presento un estudio de caso del Templo Zen de la Vida (生命禅院, Life Zen Temple). Se trata de un movimiento idiosincrásico tanto por su insistencia en ser a la vez comunista y religio como por sus experimentos sobre el amor libre. También es un buen ejemplo de los efectos de los cambios legislativos y administrativos de Xi, ya que pasó de lo rojo a lo gris y, finalmente, en 2021, a lo negro."

     From Google Translate: "In the last part of the article, I present a case study of the Life Zen Temple (生命禅院, Life Zen Temple). It is an idiosyncratic movement both for its insistence on being both communist and religious and for its experiments in free love. It is also a good example of the effects of Xi's legislative and administrative changes, as he moved from red to gray and finally, in 2021, to black."

     The article notes on page 57: "El 28 de abril de 2021, a partir de la 1:00 de la madrugada, la Seguridad Pública y agentes de la unidad especializada en la lucha contra el xie jiao empezaron a hacer redadas en los dos asentamientos comunales del Templo Zen de la Vida (生命禅院, Life Zen Temple), situados en zonas remotas del condado de Tongzi y del condado de Anlong, en la provincia de Guizhou. A las 6:30 de la mañana, ya habían tomado el control de los dos locales, donde vivían unos 100 devotos de 13 provincias diferentes. Fue una redada clásica contra una “secta”, aclamada por la policía como un éxito total (he reconstruido el incidente basándome en los comunicados de prensa de la Seguridad Pública de Guizhou)."

     From Google Translate: "On April 28, 2021, starting at 1:00 in the morning, Public Security and agents from the unit specialized in the fight against xie jiao began to raid the two communal settlements of the Zen Temple of the Life (生命禅院, Life Zen Temple), located in remote areas of Tongzi County and Anlong County, Guizhou Province. At 6:30 in the morning, they had already taken control of the two premises, where about 100 devotees from 13 different provinces lived. It was a classic “cult” raid, hailed by the police as a complete success (I have reconstructed the incident based on press releases from Guizhou Public Security)."

  4. Wei, Jing 魏婧, ed. (2021-07-27). "自称上帝使者，鼓吹性爱自由……"生命禅院"非法组织被依法取缔！" [Claiming to be a messenger of God and advocating freedom of sex... the illegal organization "Shengmin Chanyuan" was banned according to law!] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

     The article notes: "中国网7月27日讯 据中国反邪教网消息，自称上帝使者，鼓吹性爱自由，裹挟成员聚居，“生命禅院”非法组织被依法取缔！"

     From Google Translate: "China Net reported on July 27 that according to the China Anti-Cult Network, the illegal organization "Lifechanyuan" was banned according to law because he claimed to be a messenger of God, advocated freedom of sex, and coerced members to live in gatherings!"

     The article notes: "从2002年起，张自繁借用佛教、基督教、伊斯兰教、道教等宗教理论，并歪曲现实社会提倡的种种价值观，再糅杂一些心灵鸡汤，编造出一套唬人的“生命禅院”理念。之后，他又以“雪峰”为笔名，将这些所谓的理念集结成册，先后印制了《雪峰文集》《禅院文集》《新时代人类八百理念》等书籍。后来，这些书籍也成为张自繁对信徒实施精神控制的重要工具。"

     From Google Translate: "Since 2002, Zhang Zifan has borrowed religious theories such as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Taoism, distorted various values ​​promoted by the real society, and mixed in some chicken soup for the soul to concoct a set of bluffing "Life Chanyuan" concepts. After that, he used the pen name "Xue Feng" to collect these so-called ideas into books, and successively printed books such as "Xue Feng Collected Works", "Zen Yuan Collected Works", and "Eight Hundred Ideas of Humanity in the New Era". Later, these books also became an important tool for Zhang Zifan to exercise mental control over his believers."

  5. "現實版1Q84：婚姻是痛苦根源" [Reality version 1Q84: Marriage is the source of pain]. World Journal (in Chinese). 2014-01-18. p. B3.

     The article notes: "香港蘋果日報報導，生命禪院的「理論基礎」是雪峰數十萬字關於人生的意義、36維空間、20個平行時間等論述，聽得人一頭霧水。唯一聽懂的其中一項核心理念：婚姻家庭是痛苦根源。 ... 「我們的情愛性愛是比較自由的！」從紐西蘭回國、年約30歲的雙胞胎姊妹顏渝和顏瑾，是生命禪院裡擁有高學歷的成員，她們在海外原本過著很好的生活、擁有良好的職業，但受這兒純樸的集體生活吸引，去年6月加入。"

     From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Apple Daily reported that the "theoretical basis" of Lifechanyuan is Xuefeng's hundreds of thousands of words on the meaning of life, 36-dimensional space, 20 parallel times, etc., which makes people confused. One of the core concepts I only understand: marriage and family are the source of suffering. ... "Our love and sex are relatively free!" Twin sisters Yan Yu and Yan Jin, about 30 years old, who returned from New Zealand, are highly educated members of Lifechanyuan. They used to live a very happy life overseas. I have a good life and a good career, but I was attracted by the simple collective life here and joined in June last year."

  6. "「共妻淫亂」 生命禪院被斷水電 雲南「第二家園」 性愛自由、人人皆「情人」 成員改名換姓務農自足 3分院面臨解散" ["Shared Wife and Fornication" Lifechanyuan was cut off from water and electricity. Yunnan's "Second Home" offers free sex and everyone is a "lover". Members changed their names to work in farming and are self-sufficient. Branch 3 is facing dissolution.]. World Journal (in Chinese). 2014-01-18. p. B3.

     The article notes: "中國唯一自稱真正實施共產主義的社區─雲南省「生命禪院第二家園」，近日遭當局以「共產共妻聚眾淫亂」等理由取締，三個分院面臨解散危機。港媒近日深入該社區，發現區內雖推崇性愛自由、以女性為尊，卻沒有想像中的肉慾橫流，而是由失婚婦女與逃避社會壓力的年輕人等，以各自獨立又相互合作的方式共同生活。"

     From Google Translate: "The only community in China that claims to truly implement communism, the "Lifechanyuan Second Home" in Yunnan Province, was recently banned by the authorities on the grounds of "communist wives gathering together for lewdness", and the three branches are in danger of being disbanded. Hong Kong media recently went deep into the community and discovered that although sexual freedom and respect for women are respected in the community, it is not as sensual as imagined. Instead, divorced women and young people escaping from social pressure work independently and cooperatively. live together."

     The article notes: "香港蘋果日報報導，位於雲南的「生命禪院第二家園」成立至今四年多，園內約150名成員皆不得擁有私人財產，且放棄原本姓名，改用被稱為「精神導遊」的56歲創建者「雪峰」賜名，彼此則互稱「禪院草」。"

     From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Apple Daily reported that it has been more than four years since the establishment of the "Lifechanyuan Second Home" in Yunnan. About 150 members of the park are not allowed to own private property, and have given up their original names and replaced them with the 56-year-old "spiritual tour guide." The founder "Xue Feng" gave the name to each other, and they called each other "Zen Yuan Cao"."

  7. "「婚姻是痛苦根源」" ["Marriage is a source of suffering"]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2014-01-18. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

     The article notes: "雪峰告訴記者生命禪院的「理論基礎」是他數十萬字關於人生的意義、36維空間、20個平行時間等論述，聽得人一頭霧水。"

     From Google Translate: "Xuefeng told reporters that the "theoretical basis" of Lifechanyuan is his hundreds of thousands of words on the meaning of life, 36-dimensional space, 20 parallel times, etc., which made people confused."

  8. "云南社区 共产共妻 性爱自由回归自然" [Yunnan community communism and wife sharing, sexual freedom returns to nature]. Nanyang Siang Pau (in Chinese). 2014-01-19. p. A23.

     The article notes: "中国云南一个自称是真正实施共产主义的社区，近日被官方以“聚众淫乱”为由，即将面临取缔。香港《苹果日报》记者近日采访这个推崇性爱自由、回归自然的“生命禅院第二家园”。记者发现，社区没有想像中的肉欲横流。官方指控的所谓“聚众淫乱”，其实他们是不鼓励一对一的爱情或性关系。生命社区第二家园创于2009年，在云南省共有3所分院。社区常驻人口150人，投入集体生活前要经半年考察，加入社区后可随时退出。"

     From Google Translate: "A community in Yunnan, China, which claims to be the real implementation of communism, has been officially banned recently on the grounds of "gathering people for lewdness". A reporter from Hong Kong's "Apple Daily" recently interviewed this "Lifechanyuan Second Home", which advocates freedom of sex and returning to nature. The reporter found that the community was not as sensual as imagined. The so-called "gathering of people for lewdness" that the authorities accuse is actually discouraging one-to-one love or sexual relationships. Life Community Second Home was founded in 2009 and has 3 branches in Yunnan Province. The permanent population of the community is 150. Before joining the collective life, a six-month inspection is required. After joining the community, you can withdraw at any time."

  9. "三所分院常驻人口051人" [The three branches have a permanent population of 051.]. China Press (in Chinese). 2014-01-19. p. B5.

     The article notes: "生命禅院第二家园创于2009年，在云南省共有三所分院，常驻人口150人，年纪最大的87岁，最小的5岁。投入集体生活前要经半年考察，在网上交流，可随时退出。"

     From Google Translate: "Lifechanyuan Second Home was founded in 2009. It has three branches in Yunnan Province with a permanent population of 150. The oldest is 87 years old and the youngest is 5 years old. Before joining the collective life, you need to undergo an inspection for half a year, communicate online, and you can withdraw at any time."

  There is sufficient coverage in
  reliable sources to allow Shengmin Chanyuan (simplified Chinese: 生命禅院; traditional Chinese: 生命禪院) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard well done as always bringing the sources. The difficulty I have with this article is the disconnect between what's in the page and what can be documented. Let's assume someone wants to do the significant revision required to eliminate proselytizing and otherwise unencyclopedic content. What would then be left would be three propositions:

• there was a commune in Yunnnan in the late 1990's and early 2000s - well established, can almost get to notability with the NYT article but Apple Daily seems to be based on information the founder has provided to them, not independent journalism. I couldn't find the world journal articles but if they are just regurgitating A.D.... Nanyang Siang Pau maybe?
• there was a crackdown - well established through Chinese media, can describe them based on Chinese media reports plus the Introvigne article. There's a bunch of unreliable media out there as well on this.
• the founder moved to Canada and his organization continues to recruit members while he refines his philosophy and issues volume after volume of deep thoughts - notability not well established except through self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability

Oblivy (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that is a good outline of the topics that could be covered in article. The article could also cover what Shengmin Chanyuan's followers believe since pages 60–62 of Introvigne 2022 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIntrovigne2022 (help) discuss that. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I've done my part revising the article so it is based on reliable sources. I had to put in some primary sources just to bring the article up to date as AFAIK no reliable secondary source has mentioned them since they came to Canada. I'll change my vote to keep provided that the article remains objective.

  One final comment - the article was created as Lifechanyuan International Family Society apparently following the rejection of Lifechanyuan at AfC. LIFS is the Canada reboot of the Chinese commune. The rebuilt article is about Lifechanyuan as a movement rather than the Canadian commune, suggest a rename to Lifechanyuan once this is finished. Oblivy (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Apple newspaper was in Hongkong and they are one of the medias resisting Communist Party, so they came and interviewed some members, but they were not reporting our community in an objective angle, they are using it to attack the Central government. And the official source claiming we were illegal in 2021 is the media from Chinese government.

  The New York Times reported us in around the end of 2013 when we were facing the 1st disbandment from authority.

  For the times and facts, there are some mistakes as well.

  I appreciate your effort of investigating the sources and try to introduce in your way, but what it is is what it is, and what is fact is fact, this is not an academic content, cannot be edited by the way of only based on limited sources. On behalf of our society, we require to delete it, let people search and investigate, read and experience by themselves, but not by the limit information and reports from non-independant medias. Thank you. Tongxincao (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is neutrally written and sourced to reliable sources (except for two sentences appropriately sourced to the company's website and a press release that explains what the group's beliefs and its current practice). Wikipedia:Autobiography#Creating an article about yourself says:

  Anything you submit will be edited mercilessly to make it neutral. Many autobiographical articles have become a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community, and in several instances their original authors have asked that they be deleted – usually unsuccessfully, because if an article qualifies for deletion the community will typically do that without prompting, and an article won't be deleted just because its subject is unhappy with it.

  Cunard (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you so much for your excellent work cleaning up the article, Oblivy (talk · contribs)! I really appreciate it! Cunard (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We hope this can be deleted because the information is not correct, objective, and complete, for example it says "couples sleep separately", this is so wierd in expression and will scare and mislead people. The truth is that everyone in the community is independent so there is no "couples" or "marriages" in the community. This will mislead people so much, therefore it will mislead the public seriously on what real Lifechanyuan is. Tongxincao (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please raise further content concerns about the article on Talk:Lifechanyuan International Family Society as those concerns belong on the talk page rather than at AfD. The New York Times article says, "Certainly, some aspects of the group’s structure and practices are rather unorthodox. Members are known as celestials, all property is shared, and couples sleep apart." The wording in the Wikipedia article is an accurate paraphrase of The New York Times article. Cunard (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waters of Mormon

Waters of Mormon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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]

Martyr (politics)

Martyr (politics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Low quality article. Parent article Martyr already clarifies in the first sentence that the word may have a non-religious meaning. I propose a merge of this article to Martyr#Political people entitled as martyr and/or Martyr#Revolutionary martyr. Super Ψ Dro 13:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Religion. Super Ψ Dro 13:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen that the article was first split from Martyr by its creator Scolaire [5]. This happened without there being any template requesting a split in the article [6] and without anyone else proposing this in the talk page [7]. By the way, another previous content fork of the parent article was already split and merged once [8] [9]. Super Ψ Dro 13:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is what is known as a

bold edit; bold edits are encouraged on Wikipedia. I did say I was doing it on the talk page, per your link, and nobody had any objection. After eight years, I think we can say that WP:Silence and consensus applies. If consensus now changes, so be it. Scolaire (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose. "Low quality article" is not a valid reason for deletion. Had you done a
  GNG. --Scolaire (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge I see no need to have separate articles for people martyred for religious reasons and people martyred for political reasons since the term still has the same meaning of persecution. The main martyr article still includes a number of political and other non-religious related examples, so if there's actually a distinction to be made, the split should be done more clearly. The book titles above can still be used in the main article. The main page has 30 times the viewers as this page, so why make readers go through another link for the full concept when length is not an issue? Reywas92^Talk 16:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with you that there should be a clearer split. Any mention of political martyrdom, including the Revolutionary martyr section, should be moved out of the Martyr article to this one, and just have a hatnote on the Martyr article pointing to this one. Scolaire (talk) 15:36, 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!} 23:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - in sum, I don't see anything with the information, which is all factual and correct. The biggest problem is that it's sort of a
  fix it. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Jershon

Jershon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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]

WEYS-LD

WEYS-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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.

Can. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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: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

Max Baker-Hytch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet

]

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 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: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: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 [10] [11] [12] 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
  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
  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

Honorary Chaplain to the King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This page 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

Mission sui iuris of Lunda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I 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

WCSD-LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not many articles have been attempted to be

• 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

Seeds of Hope Publishers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• 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]

Frederick F. Cornell

Frederick F. Cornell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails

• 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

John Edwin Fulton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article 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: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

Michael Lodahl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Essentially an unsourced

• 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: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
  Call it a day here. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Bradfield Abbey

Bradfield Abbey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails 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
  WP:V. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (denomination)

Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (denomination) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

1. Link - Primary Source
2. 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.
3. Link. Self-published source of questionable reliability, not updated for a decade.
4. Link Primary source
5. 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.
6. Link - Fails verification for notability; does not reference subject.
7. Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
8. Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
9. Link - Primary source
10. Link - Primary source
11. Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
12. Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages. Fails verification for notability.
13. 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

Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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:

1. Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
2. Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages
3. Link - Primary source
4. Banner of Truth magazine. This magazine is not available online (see here) and thus this citation is unverifiable.
5. British Church Newspaper. Likewise unavailable online and thus unverifiable.
6. Link - Primary source
7. Link - Discussion board; user-generated content.
8. Link - Primary source
9. Link - Primary source
10. Link - Primary source
11. 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

  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

Waters of Mormon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This 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

  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]

  @

  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

WHFL-CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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
  significant coverage either. Likely a remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]