Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

Welcome to the Christianity Noticeboard This page serves to coordinate the various discussions taking place throughout the Christianity-related project talkpages. Even though , there are numerous Christianity-related projects, with many different conversations going on at the same time. This Noticeboard hopes to achieve some kind of order in keeping track of the various goings-on. You are welcome to add to the discussion.

Recent changes of Christianity-related talkpages

List of abbreviations (help):

D: Edit made at Wikidata
r: Edit flagged by ORES
N: New page
m: Minor edit
b: Bot edit
(±123): Page byte size change

Alerts for Christianity-related articles

Today's featured article requests

10 Nov 2024 – Justus (talk · edit · hist) has been proposed for Today's Featured Article by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion

Did you know

12 Sep 2024 – Niederdollendorf stone (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Tenpop421 (t · c); see discussion
30 Aug 2024 – AdventHealth Daytona Beach (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Catfurball (t · c); see discussion
30 Aug 2024 – Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Bobby Cohn (t · c); see discussion
29 Aug 2024 – The Book of Longings (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Orchastrattor (t · c); see discussion
29 Jul 2024 – Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1 (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Stephen Walch (t · c); see discussion

Articles for deletion

21 Sep 2024 – Helaman Jeffs (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by CFA (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
19 Sep 2024 – BEC Recordings (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Glman (t · c); see discussion (4 participants)
18 Sep 2024 – John W. Murray (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Altenmann (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
18 Sep 2024 – Sada-e-Umeed (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Saqib (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
18 Sep 2024 – St. Vincent's Home for the Aged (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Saqib (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
18 Sep 2024 – L'Opus Dei: enquête sur le "monstre" (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by PARAKANYAA (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
09 Sep 2024 – Public image of Mother Teresa (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Polygnotus (t · c); see discussion (7 participants; relisted)
01 Sep 2024 – Big Church Festival (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Voorts (t · c); see discussion (21 participants; relisted)
15 Sep 2024 – The Good News Voice (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Let'srun (t · c) was closed as redirect by Liz (t · c) on 22 Sep 2024; see discussion (3 participants)
10 Sep 2024 – Almohad conquest of Evora (1191) (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Javext (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 17 Sep 2024; see discussion (11 participants)

(5 more...)

Proposed deletions

21 Sep 2024 – Urukunnu Kurisumala (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Boleyn (t · c): I couldn't find evidence that this meets WP:N

Categories for discussion

22 Sep 2024 – Category:Fictional necromancers (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Jc37 (t · c); see discussion
13 Sep 2024 – Category:Works about LGBT and Christianity (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by BlasterOfHouses (t · c); see discussion
13 Sep 2024 – Category:LGBT Unitarian Universalists (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by BlasterOfHouses (t · c); see discussion
13 Sep 2024 – Category:LGBT Roman Catholics (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by BlasterOfHouses (t · c); see discussion
13 Sep 2024 – Category:LGBT Protestant clergy (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by BlasterOfHouses (t · c); see discussion
13 Sep 2024 – Category:LGBT Quakers (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by BlasterOfHouses (t · c); see discussion
13 Sep 2024 – Category:LGBT Protestants (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by BlasterOfHouses (t · c); see discussion
13 Sep 2024 – Category:LGBT Pentecostals (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by BlasterOfHouses (t · c); see discussion
13 Sep 2024 – Category:LGBT Methodist bishops (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by BlasterOfHouses (t · c); see discussion
13 Sep 2024 – Category:LGBT Methodist clergy (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by BlasterOfHouses (t · c); see discussion

(46 more...)

Redirects for discussion

16 Sep 2024 – Dr. Paisley (talk · edit · hist) →Ian Paisley was RfDed by Hey man im josh (t · c); see discussion
14 Sep 2024 – Housing s at Saint Joseph's University (talk · edit · hist) →Saint Joseph's University was RfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion
12 Sep 2024 – God of the Old Testament (talk · edit · hist) →Yahweh was RfDed by Presidentman (t · c); see discussion
11 Sep 2024 – Hkbu (talk · edit · hist) →Hong Kong Baptist University was RfDed by Rusalkii (t · c); see discussion
10 Aug 2024 – Unio personalis (talk · edit · hist) →Prosopon was RfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion
10 Aug 2024 – Personal Union of Christ (talk · edit · hist) →Christology was RfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion
10 Aug 2024 – Personal union of Christ (talk · edit · hist) →Christology was RfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion
10 Aug 2024 – Unio Personalis (talk · edit · hist) →Christology was RfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion
10 Aug 2024 – Unio personalia (talk · edit · hist) →Christology was RfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion
10 Aug 2024 – Unio Personalia (talk · edit · hist) →Christology was RfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion

(1 more...)

Christianity

Helaman Jeffs

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

No indication of standalone notability. Hardly any coverage of the subject; notability is not inherited. (NPP action) C F A 💬 20:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Christianity. C F A 💬 20:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BEC Recordings

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

Article has been deleted and restored unilaterally by other editors due to debate over notability. While I believe the label is notable, I have not been able to find sourcing to support this assertion. Brining here to gain consensus on deletion or retention. glman (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tooth & Nail Records, which I did as an WP:ATD. It wasn't deleted. Record labels are a company. Not a band and falls under WP:NCORP, not WP:NMUSIC and this label is unable to meet NCORP level of notability. Graywalls (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The label has not been the subject of in-depth secondary sources. This webpage by christianmusicarchive.com is an exact quote of Wikipedia, so it fails WP:CIRCULAR. This page in the "person" section of CBN lacks a named author, so its reliability is questionable. It seems like BEC wrote it and CBN is hosting it. The notional topic fails WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Christianity, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tooth & Nail Records per a failure to demonstrate independent notability but a definite utility in retention as a plausible search item. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Murray

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

Nonnotable pastor. Lacking significant coverage. --Altenmann >talk 23:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found a primary source [1] and that's about it. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sada-e-Umeed

AfDs for this article:

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

Faila NORG. The article contains WP:OR and appears promotional. This was an AfD'd in 2020 that closed as non-consensus. The only vote to keep the article had a counterargument that wasn't addressed. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 04:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 04:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Vincent's Home for the Aged

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NORG. The article contains WP:OR and appears promotional. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 04:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Given that there are some sources with definite SIGCOV in English plus a handful like this that provide partial coverage, I'm inclined towards keep. I'm not familiar with the local languages, but I'd hazard to guess that further RS SIGCOV exists. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pbritti, SIGCOV doesn't exist in the local language, unfortunately. Courtesy ping @Wikibear47: to ask if they found coverage in local languages? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

L'Opus Dei: enquête sur le "monstre"

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

The only usable source here is La Libre, which is not sigcov and is not enough. Found 1 other journal source that looks good (though I question its independence). Redirect to author Patrice de Plunkett? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be a number of reviews and coverage in French, until we can say otherwise I think we can assume that there is enough coverage outside the english language. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back No reliable, significant ones to my awareness. None found in a search of French media sources either. Every French source used here is a blog, or passing mention. Or has no independence from the Opus Dei, which obviously has a COI here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For context, the sources used inline are linking to the ones in the further reading. These sources are four interviews with blogs, all affiliated with Da Vinci Code conspiracies or the Opus Dei, and the brief La Libre mention. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There doesn't seem to be any coverage in French... I tried the title with "critique" or "revue critique"... you can get a thousand places to buy it, see where it's held in libraries... This was all I could find that even mentions it [2]... The subject of Ops Dei is mentioned here, but not specifically about the book [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b For future reference the word usually used for (well, some, typically academic reviews) book reviews in French is compte rendu. There is one review I found while searching that phrase but I think it's from an Opus Dei affiliated publication so questionable independence. Even if its not, it's only one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction... I'm not using my French as much as I should, it gets jumbled with the English in my head. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recommended reading here [4], but there isn't much coverage of the book. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on a redirect? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could redirect to the author, his name comes up enough in searches. Oaktree b (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public image of Mother Teresa

Previous AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Criticism of Mother Teresa

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

Started as a WP:POVFORK [5] and since then it has changed quite a bit but it never really improved. This article is not about her public image, which is overwhelmingly positive, (and not a notable topic which does not pass WP:GNG), it is about certain criticisms of her. For some reason the article got moved [6]. Criticism should be in the main article and this POVFORK should be removed. Polygnotus (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Christianity, India, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm COI on this because 1.) a family friend ran some of Mother Teresa's US PR stuff and 2.) Mother Teresa holds special, positive importance in a private element of my life. However, I'm of the opinion that this article, while possibly a bit OR-heavy, strikes me as generally neutral and notable. I can elaborate, but I feel my COI precludes me from seriously inserting myself any further here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: COI users are allowed to have an opinion (even those who disagree with me

). See WP:COIEDIT and WP:COIADVICE. Do you know any reliable sources that are about her public image and not her as a person? Do you think it is a good idea that all criticism was removed from the article about her and moved to this, far more obscure, article? And that, possibly as a result of the move from Criticism of... to Public image of..., the criticism got hidden even further down the page? Polygnotus (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your encouragement to discussion! Perusing JSTOR, I'm finding some pieces like this. Generally, they come from the late 1990s and are heaving on the sociology (not necessarily bad, especially in a subjective subject). I have objections over centering criticisms like Hitchens's on her biographical article—one of a few significant marks against his legacy—but generally agree that we need to exercise caution in any diminishment of sustained and impactful criticism. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to see how some people are overly cautious with anything approaching COI while others... are not. ;-) Of course, the criticism comes not just from Hitchens. People like Aroup Chatterjee and Tariq Ali and Mihir Bose and even people who worked for her like Hemley Gonzalez and Susan Shields et cetera have famously criticized her work. There are a lot of very important people who said very positive things about her; let's be fair and balance that out with some of the criticism. MLK jr got a criticism section. You can probably write a criticism section for Ghandi. I am quoting myself, and when I wrote that the Mother Teresa article still had a criticism section. No matter what happens here, the criticism will return anyway. It never left, despite attempts to hide it. Polygnotus (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: sorry I forgot to ping. Polygnotus (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critics say grossly inadequate medical care was given to the sick and dying. Syringes were reused without sterilisation, pain relief was non-existent or negligible, and conditions were unhygienic. Meanwhile, Mother Teresa spent much of her time travelling around the world in a private plane to meet political leaders. -- The Guardian. Polygnotus (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at WP:SIZESPLIT, over 9000 words means "Probably should be divided or trimmed". The main article currently got only 5000 words. I flipped it around. If it would be fair then that shouldn't matter, right? But it does cause it isn't.

Finally, how competent are the sisters at managing pain? On a short visit, I could not judge the power of the spiritual approach, but I was disturbed to learn the formulary includes no strong analgesics. Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Teresa's approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement. I know which I prefer.' Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet from 1990 to 1995. PMID: 7818649 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(94)92353-1 Polygnotus (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: I still feel too COI to formally !vote, but you've convinced me. I now favor deletion. Thanks for your comments. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was previously nominated for deletion on August 2023. The article's current title came as a result of that discussion. I was the one who removed the criticism section but I retained the criticism against her since it would be a violation of NPOV to remove it. You do not need such a section to include criticism about a person. The NPOV policy discourages such sections anyway. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or merge - clear WP:POVFORK, and the lack of criticism in the main article is now notable by its absence. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider whether it is better to Delete this article or Merge some content back into the main article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mother Teresa#Legacy and depictions in popular culture — Maile (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the topic itself is notable, having found multiple academic sources attesting the notability of the subject's public image, such as in popular discourse or media culture. A selection of examples follow:
- Arvind Rajagopal, "Celebrity and the Politics of Charity: Memories of a Missionary Departed" (Routledge, 1999)
- Gëzim Alpion, Mother Teresa: Saint or Celebrity? (Routledge, 2006), https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203087510
- Daniel T. Kline, "Digital Hagiography: Princess Diana, Mother Teresa, and Medieval Women in Cyberspace", College Literature 28, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 92–117, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25112585
- Gaston Roberge, "Mother Teresa, Abortion, and the Media" (Routledge, 2011)
- Gëzim Alpion, "Why Are Modern Spiritual Icons Absent in Celebrity Studies? The Role of Intermediaries in Enhancing Mother Teresa's Advocacy in India and Australia Prior to the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize", Celebrity Studies 11, no. 2 (2020): 221–236, https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2019.1567366

The difficulty, of course, is that the current version of the article is not based on this literature. Instead it's a mashup of some stuff about legacy like the sainthood plus specific criticisms. I suppose there might be a case the article warrants WP:TNT, since its content is so disconnected from the literature relevant to the article's purported topic per its title (Saint or Celebrity is cited once; the rest not at all) that it'd require substantial cleanup. I'm not presently making that case, but I'd be open to hearing it from another. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hydrangeans: Thank you, we could probably use those sources to write a section on the main article, and if there is really a lot of content that could get split. But the current article in its current form is not a good starting point to write such an article imo, so it seems like WP:TNT is the best option. Can we put those sources in a {{refideas}} template on the talkpage of the main article? Polygnotus (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to main article, per Bastun. John (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Church Festival

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

I boldy merged this article over a year ago, but just noticed that my redirect was reverted in October. This festival fails WP:NCONCERT/WP:NCORP (which I think applies because this is a non-profit festival, i.e., an organization that puts on an event once a year). I have been unable to find sustained, in-depth coverage of the festival. As there is still merged content in Christian music festival#Worldwide, I propose restoring the redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Religion, Christianity, and United Kingdom. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be be enough coverage to warrant the page to be kept and improved on. cyberdog958^Talk 02:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not count Event Industry News toward notability; per WP:TRADES, there's a presumption against using industry trade publications to establish notability. Christian Today and Cross Rhythms are both from 2015, hence why I noted this event lacks sustained coverage. Those are the only sources with SIGCOV I could find; the rest of the coverage I've been able to find are routine announcements that particular bands are performing at the event. In sum, two reviews from 2015 isn't enough to establish notability in my view. Cross Rhythms is also an interview with the founder, which means it lacks independence. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per the Christianity Today piece and the Cross Rhythms piece which has a significant coverage prose introduction before the interview part, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional. Irrelevant. with hardly any reliable or independent references--Alon9393 (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant is a personal opinion not a notability factor and promotionalism can be edited out, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor frequently argues an article is relevant or irrelevant, I'm not sure what that means. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Looks irrelevant and not sure about the notability of the subject.Santoshsah4 (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by [l]ooks irrelevant? If you're not sure about the notability of the subject, why do you think this article should be kept? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Santoshsah4. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Insillaciv (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Categories for discussion

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

Miscellaneous

References

v t e Christianity-related talkpages noticeboard discussion
Project	Christianity
All talk pages for the following workgroups redirect to the noticeboard discussion page
Workgroups	Anabaptist Baptist Christianity in China Core topics Evangelical Christianity Holiness movement Jesus Methodism Syriac Christianity Theology
Subprojects	Anglicanism Arminianism Bible Biblical criticism Catholicism Canon law Charismatic Christianity Christian films Christian music Southern Gospel Christianity in India Eastern Orthodoxy Holidays Christmas Halloween Jehovah's Witnesses Jewish Christianity Latter Day Saint movement Lutheranism Oriental Orthodoxy Reformed Christianity Religious Society of Friends-Quakers Religious texts Saints Seventh-day Adventist Church Unitarianism and Universalism