Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 03:46, 10 January 2025

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Christianity

Community United Methodist Church of Pacific Palisades

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

Per WP:NCHURCH needs to meet WP:GNG. The mere fact it burned down doesn't make it notable. Seems like something notable for one event, similar to what is described in WP:1E to me. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 21:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 21:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Redirect targets could be United Methodist Church or List of Methodist churches#United States. Merge target could be Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles#Culture. This comment is not a vote in favor of deletion or redirection. jengod (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The church congregation founded the town in the 1920s. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing WP:GNG-qualifying coverage of the building. SportingFlyer T·C 22:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The building as a building need not have coverage. A "church" in common usage refers both to the congregation of people and the religious building in which it meets. Regardless, this coverage has been significantly expanded since nomination and appears to meet GNG with adequate RSes. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: It looks like the building had marginal historic notability and received substantial treatment by the local historical society ([1]). The congregation may have additional notability beyond the structure, considering the amount of material that went into the documentary. I'm inclined to believe most of it is locked away offline. Even still, a Google search exempting the word "fire" gives me hope that this is notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The LA Times and Roberts News sources clear WP:GNG separate from the coverage of its destruction. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Whyte III

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

Sources only mention the subject in passing. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, New York, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources come up in Google News or Google Books; fails WP:NBIO. Notability aside, the whole article is promotional to the point of not being worth keeping. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Anglican Church of North America

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

I find no evidence that this organization passes WP:GNG or ever did. Its website is inactive, but archived versions ([2], [3]) have no listing of member congregations, and it appears that if it ever did have congregations they must have been very few. It is not mentioned in the two standard reference works on American Christian denominations (Kurian & Lamport or Melton, and Melton includes even the very smallest denominations). There is a single mention of it in a New York Times article about a church it supposedly recognized in Venezuela. It existed, that much is true, but beyond that anything that can be said about it fails WP:V. It doesn't reach GNG and it doesn't even reach the looser threshold described at WP:RELIGIONOUTCOMES. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Texas. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Smith (Vicar of Great Paxton)

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

No evidence this individual passes WP:NBIO, WP:GNG. No pass on WP:NAUTHOR either; there's a published response to Smith's polemic on Quakerism but nothing else verifiable. (The Bockett letter does not appear to have been published and thus would not count as a review.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Christianity, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again not finding anything about him except for a short blurb of the same book you mentioned on the Quaker archives of Canada. ❤History Theorist❤ 00:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Malcolm

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

Biography for an extremely WP:ROTM Presbyterian clergyman who fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Two of the sources are WP:USERGENERATED photos uploaded to Commons ([4], [5]), another user-generated geneaology page ([6]), a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION in a report on the Boy Scouts ([7]), a single mention of his WWI service ([8]), and a routine brief mention in a local Presbyterian trade magazine ([9]). A WP:BEFORE search turned up no WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Canada, and Michigan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There isn't really even a claim to notability in the article, just that he was an ordinary clergyman who served in World War I. Didn't find any additional sources of note. MCE89 (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources cited either aren't independent or cover him in any depth. I also couldn't find anything on the web that indicates special notability. ❤History Theorist❤ 01:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure that he was one of The Elect, but there are no reliable sources other than possibly the Boy Scouts. Bearian (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above. Based on username it looks like the author is probably related to Malcolm. Can't find any evidence of notability. BugGhost 🦗👻 09:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horae Beatae Mariae Virginis (Rps BOZ 44)

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

This specific manuscript does not appear to be notable, as there is only one source for it with anything approaching sigcov. There appear to be several other items with the same name, that may or may not be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Harvard Ichthus

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

Can't find WP:SIGCOV for this, article mostly relies on primary sources. Side note, the article's tone is also a little inappropriate for an encyclopedia; makes persuasive arguments. seefooddiet (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Schools, and Massachusetts. seefooddiet (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No independent sources have been provided. Almost all the links are to this publication's own website. The only one that isn't is a broken link to the Harvard University website, which, I suspect, used to be a listing of this publication as being a student organization. But that would only establish existence, not notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Collegiate Network (where it is listed) as an AtD. No standalone notability here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Henry District High School

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

Vintage article from when schools had a free pass. This is a non notable school. Fails WP:NORG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Kentucky. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Covington#High_schools: as an WP:ATD. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Covington#High_schools: as an WP:ATD per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As nominator I find the suggested redirect wholly acceptable 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
Sources
1. Mayhew, Chris (2017-05-18). "St. Henry District High School plans $6 million addition". The Cincinnati Enquirer. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The Cincinnati Enquirer is a major newspaper in Cincinnati, Ohio, while the St. Henry District High School is a high school in Erlanger, Kentucky. The article notes: "St. Henry District High School will spend $6 million to build the largest auditorium at any Diocese of Covington Catholic school. ... The auditorium and other projects are phase one of a new financial giving campaign called Building on Excellence, Guided by Faith. This is the Catholic high school's first expansion in more than 20 years. There are 560 students from 20 grade schools enrolled at St. Henry paying a $7,200 annual tuition. St. Henry is the largest co-ed school in the diocese. Enrollment has increased by 18 percent since the school won a 2012 National Blue Ribbon of educational excellence award. Parishes served by the high school include St. Henry and St. Barbara in Erlanger and the Boone County parishes of All Saints, Immaculate Heart of Mary, Mary Queen of Heaven, St. Paul, St. Timothy and Cristo Rey."
2. Winston, Earnest (1998-11-16). "Diocese blesses N.Ky. school: New St. Henry has room to grow". The Cincinnati Enquirer. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Senior Anne Schmidt vividly remembers her frustration as she sat inside crowded classrooms at the old St. Henry High School in Elsmere. But the 17-year-old literally hit a high note Sunday. She was among dozens of students who sang during a dedication ceremony for the new St. Henry District High School. An estimated 1,500 people attended Sunday's dedication and open house. ... The $5.6 million facility is the first Roman Catholic high school ever in Boone County, and the first built by the Diocese of Covington in 40 years. The school enrolls about 470 students from seven feeder parishes, but has room for 600.... The school features a "Bricks of Success" wall, which carries 932 engraved bricks bought by alumni and friends. Each came with a pledge of at least $500."
3. Melman, Karen (1998-11-19). "St. Henry: 'Welcome to the neighborhood'". The Boone County Recorder. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "In 1942, 17 students graduated from a tiny St. Henry High School. Virginia Dahlenburg Reese was among them. Sunday, Reese, a Crestview Hills resident, was one of nearly 1,500 who packed the cafeteria of the new $5.6 million dollar St. Henry District High School, off Donaldson Road. She watched as it was dedicated and blessed by the Most Rev. Robert Muench, the Covington Diocese bishop. ... Today, the school is 467 students strong. And enrollment is expected to jump to 500 next year. ... Located on Scheben Drive, the new building features a chapel, a new cafeteria, sports fields, and a state-of-the art gymnasium that I will soon be built. The names of contributors who donated $500 or more are featured on the "Bricks of Success," a wall inside the school. Many people are to thank, said Principal David Otte, who called the campaign, a "diocese effort." Though proud of the new school-one with a strong 65-year history-the bishop stressed it isn't the "state-of-the art" building that is important."
4. Gramke, Chris (1998-09-03). "St. Henry students head into school year in new building" (pages 1 and 2). The Boone County Recorder. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Students attending St. Henry District High School this fall might need directions to find their school. That's because students have a brand-new, state-of-the-art building located at 3755 Scheben Drive they can call home once classes begin on Sept. 8. ... The new building is 70,000 square feet and includes 23 classrooms, a chemistry lab, a biology lab, a cafeteria and a gymnasium. Two computer classrooms and a modern library are also located in the new building. It is the first Catholic high school ever located in Boone County. It's a far cry from the old high school, which had no gymnasium and saw the high-schoolers sharing a cafeteria with the grade school students. ... Not everything is going to be ready when the doors open for students Sept. 8. None of the athletic fields has been completed, which means the high school soccer teams must play their home games at Fox Field in Elsmere for another season."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow St. Henry District High School to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Vintage article from when schools had a free pass. Almost no secondary schools in North America have been deleted, even since that ended. They almost all have plenty of coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Covington#High_schools: The school has a historical relevance but as of now redirection is the best option. Charlie (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If it has historical relevance why are you suggesting redirection? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @Necrothesp historical relevance as written in its official website. However, I am unable to find the same historical coverage in secondary sources. Charlie (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by Cunard that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide in the Hebrew Bible

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

Per prior discussion(s) on article talk (which have stalled out for several weeks), this article is essentially a largely OVERLAP’d POVFORK with serious neutrality issues. The discussion of this topic is already extensively covered and properly sourced in articles such as War in the Hebrew Bible, The Bible and violence, and Judaism and violence; as is the modern day relevance of particular passages in Amalek. The contents of these discussions are neither so long that they warrant SIZESPLIT, nor are they so notable as to require a page outside their discussions on the relevant pages. Sinclairian (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Christianity, and Judaism. Skynxnex (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn’t obvious, my vote lies on delete/merge. Sinclairian (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All of this is covered on other articles. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. I don't see an argument for deletion here. I see no evidence that the article is so rife with neutrality that WP:TNT is appropriate. Nobody has disputed notability, only where this material should be covered - which is not a matter for AfD, particularly when multiple plausible merge targets exist. AfD cannot replace normal talk page discussion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Vanamonde93 sums the situation up perfectly. Per WP:DEL-CONTENT: Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input (my emph., and again per V93, the neutrality concerns are insufficiently egregious (by spades) to qualify for the level of severity required to warrant deletion, especially when alternatives are available). Talk page discussion and possible merge/redirects do not take place at AfD. SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to the Bible and violence. I question whether this page scope is fundamentally a SYNTHetic premise. The word "genocide" isn't mentioned in anything as old as the bible, as that word dates to 1944. It's true that we could still have an article about a modern concept of this. But, should we, or would this be handled better elsewhere? I don't see enough detail or sources in depth about this specific topic to handle as a separate article, personally, so I'm ending up here. Andre🚐 19:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not WP:SYNTH if other people have already applied the modern concept of genocide to the stories told in the Hebrew Bible. That by itself doesn't mean that an article with this title is the best place to talk about the subject, of course, but the idea isn't original. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources, totaling hundreds of pages, that were cited in the original version of the article and have more than enough content to support an extensive article. (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per vanamonde. (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep per vanamonde Codonified (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is almost certainly better covered as a section of War in the Hebrew Bible, but that's a content issue that doesn't really belong at AfD. None of the potential issues require deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, making sure any usable content is covered at Amalek, The Bible and violence and War in the Hebrew Bible. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a content fork to War in the Hebrew Bible. My very best wishes (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Andre that this is WP:synth and WP:OR. It is a Bible study rather than an Encyclopedia article. It contains no agreed upon definition of genocide, so there is no way to tell if the topic is notable - or if it is even valid. "If the modern concept of genocide has been discussed" is not sufficient to warrant an article on it. This article is not neutral. It takes a position: Mainstream biblical scholarship does not regard this part of the Bible to be faithfully depicting historical events. However, it could still be concluded that God commanded genocide. Which, btw, is the opposite of what the cited source says about encouraging scholars to take seriously the widely held conclusion that ideology alone is an inadequate explanation for genocide. If this article isn't deleted, the content should be wiped, and someone without a bone to pick should redo the entire thing from scratch. Please don't merge it as is. It's too poorly done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep per Vanamonde93 – Beyond the lack of a straightforward deletion reason, or evidence of an intractible issue as discussed on talk, the main suggestion here appears to be for a merger, but this would have been better handled with a merger discussion. On the matter of mergers, both War in the Hebrew Bible and The Bible and violence are already lengthy pages that are approaching the size where they would potentially be candidates for a split in any case, so the benefits of such a merger – let alone the question of whether the material presented here would be due on those pages – merits a proper, dedicated discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I’ve come to realize that a merger proposal should have been the initial course of action, but I didn’t know such a procedure existed at the time. I figure that I’ll let this discussion run its course just in case there’s a sudden spike in discussion, and then create a merger proposal once this is actually closed. Sinclairian (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. If a an article with a blatant and strong POV fails to satisfy notability : it definitely is better off deleted for possible malicious intent. But that really isn't the case with Google Scholar returning 90k hits of the two terms being used together , whenever from the perspective of religious theology or its cultural and ethical influences. The article has some nice reputable sources to build on too.

The word 'Genocide' isn't even a century old , but that still doesn't mean that the various attempts to erase entire identities by eliminating its people through either assimilation or mass destruction didn't happen before 1944. Dismissing the article because calling man-made wipeouts before the Holocaust is "anachronistic" isn't really a sound reason as it seems, especially when Lemkin himself used the Albigensian Crusade as an example in his works when he conceived the concrete concept of genocide that we know today , and we already have many ancient precedents. All that means a very rudimentary , no-legalese concept of genocide can indeed go back far enough to Biblical times ; the Bronze and Iron Ages.

Just because an article's initial revisions may seem 'biased' to some editors , doesn't mean we can just do away with it entirely. We can instead simply rewrite it from scratch if need be. The article has potential for interesting content , and the case for deletion isn't really that solid. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's not yet consensus as to whether the SYNTH/CFORK issues, if any, warrant deletion, or whether such issues should be addressed in merger or redirection discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep as discussed above. The sourcing is fine and the topic appears notable. Neutrality is another issue, but it's not for AfD to decide. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Faid

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

Reliable sources mentioning Faid only mention him for a single thing: his theory that Mikhail Gorbachev is the Antichrist, for which he received the satirical Ig Nobel Prize. Here are three such sources; note that the third has merely a passing mention:

Levine, Art (June 4, 1988). "THE DEVIL IN GORBACHEV". Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 5, 2022. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
Abrahams, Marc (May 10, 2004). "Devilish digits". The Guardian. Archived from the original on August 8, 2022. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
Whisker, Daniel (July 2012). "Apocalyptic Rhetoric on the American Religious Right: Quasi-Charisma and Anti-Charisma". Max Weber Studies. 12 (2): 159–184 – via JSTOR. The periodic modification of the specific signs of prophetic fulfilment is a key feature of the discourse: no-one now presents Mikhail Gorbachev as a potential Antichrist, as did Robert Faid in 1988 (Faid 1988), or the Native Americans as Antichrist's army, as did Cotton Mather in 1693 (Boyer 1992).

In its current state, the article contains information far beyond this single thing. This information is either completely unsourced or copied verbatim, in what I assume is a copyright violation, from Faid's obituary on Legacy.com, an unreliable source which hosts user-generated content and nonsensically claims that Faid "held the honor of being in the top ten nuclear scientists until 1975".

In my opinion, this single thing for which Faid is known is not enough to make him notable. Instead, this information, along with the three sources above, would be better suited as a part of a different article, perhaps List of conspiracy theories § Antichrist or Faid's entry at List of Ig Nobel Prize winners § 1993. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk – edits) 22:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk – edits) 22:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to List of Ig Nobel Prize winners § 1993. Also add more info in the target page about his Antichrist theories, the one thing reliable sources confirm about him.

JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, Christianity, Engineering, Maryland, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The entire Biography section was all but a direct copy from his 2008 Baltimore Sun obituary - and has been since April 2009. I've removed the copyvio text and RD1'd the article history. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion, although I'm not opposed to a redirect. Bearian (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First United Methodist Church (Midland, Texas)

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

This congregation has apparently been around a long time but I cannot find any evidence for its notability other than being the site of the Bush marriage, which really doesn't cut it. Mangoe (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:NCHURCH, individual congregations may be evaluated on GNG, which this one pass with SIGCOV in the Midland Reporter-Telegram ([10], [11]) plus the coverage in various George W and Laura Bush biographies. (Once this AfD is over, the page should be moved to reflect that it is no longer United Methodist.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above, weak because its only one publication leaving aside the Bush bios, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources identified above are enough to support a brief article. ([12] looks like a separate article about the same pulpit swap as above) Eluchil404 (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Sweden Yearly Meeting (via WP:PROD on 6 November 2024)

Categories for discussion

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

Miscellaneous

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{NOINDEX}}<noinclude>{{see also|Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion|Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Article alerts}}{{Shortcut|WP:DX|WP:DSXP|WP:DCHRISTIANITY|WP:DSCHRISTIANITY}}
-{{NOINDEX}}
-<noinclude>
-{{see also|Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion|Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Article alerts}}
-{{Shortcut|WP:DX|WP:DCHRISTIANITY|WP:DSCHRISTIANITY}}
 {{topic|Christianity}}
 {{deletionlist|Christianity}}
@@ Line 11: / Line 8: @@
 ==Christianity==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Community_United_Methodist_Church_of_Pacific_Palisades}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catch the Fire Toronto}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Calvary_Church_of_Santa_Ana}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Whyte_III}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Anglican Church of North America}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karen_Mattos}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glayton Modise}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Smith (Vicar of Great Paxton)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Malcolm}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_World_Tomorrow_(radio_and_television)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horae Beatae Mariae Virginis (Rps BOZ 44)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_politics_in_Australia}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erika_Grey}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Harvard_Ichthus}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steven_Waterhouse}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St._Henry_District_High_School}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genocide_in_the_Hebrew_Bible}}
-remove
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_W._Faid}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/First_United_Methodist_Church_(Midland,_Texas)}}
 == Christianity Proposed deletions ([[WP:PROD]]) ==
+<!-- Articles for deletion do NOT go here, only PRODs. If no PRODs, please copy and paste below: ''No articles [[WP:PROD|proposed for deletion]] at this time'' -->
+<!--
 ''No articles [[WP:PROD|proposed for deletion]] at this time''
+-->
+*{{prodded|Sweden Yearly Meeting|2024-11-06}}
-<!-- Articles for deletion do NOT go here, only PRODs. If no PRODs, please copy and paste below: ''No articles [[WP:PROD|proposed for deletion]] at this time'' -->
 == Categories for discussion ==
@@ Line 31: / Line 32: @@
 ==Miscellaneous==
-* ''None currently''