Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coolabahapple (talk | contribs) at 02:59, 13 March 2017 (oops.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion and Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Article alerts
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  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|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:
Purge page cache watch


Christianity

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catch the Fire Toronto

Catch the Fire Toronto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It looks like an advertising page; the references are of unclear reliability and trustworthiness; there is no encyclopedic value Geocapital (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Highly notable" is a stretch for the Toronto Blessing. The Toronto Blessing was a '90s fad experienced by a few thousand people. The Macarena was a much more significant '90s fad (experienced by millions of people), but we don't need an article about the birth place of the Macarena. Jrheller1 (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Toronto Blessing was certainly a 90's fad, but experienced by millions, not "a few thousand". And even a cursory glance at Google Scholar, for example, reveals that yes, it's "highly notable". StAnselm (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get the "millions" from? According to the article, the size of the congregation was only 1000. Obviously, there are millions of Pentecostals throughout the world who claim to experience similar things, but not in the context of the "Toronto Blessing". Jrheller1 (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From Toronto Blessing: At the time of the revival, Dr. James Beverley, a critic of the Toronto Blessing and a professor at Toronto-based Tyndale Seminary, stated that these events were a "mixed blessing" but was later quoted in 2014 as saying "Whatever the weaknesses are, they are more than compensated for by thousands and thousands of people having had tremendous encounters with God, receiving inner healings, and being renewed." So according to Beverley, "thousands and thousands" experienced the "Toronto Blessing", not "millions". Jrheller1 (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"To date, around two million visitors or "pilgrims" have journeyed to Toronto to experience the Blessing for themselves." StAnselm (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The author of that book section just states the number two million without any proof. As a seminary professor who lives in Toronto, Beverley is a more reliable source. For two million people to have visited the church, there would have needed to be 1000 different people at the church every day for almost five and a half years. Even if there were two million unique visitors, the Macarena is still far more significant (with more than 11 million copies sold and far more than 11 million listeners or participants). Jrheller1 (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The subject really does pass WP:GNG quite easily. Although the coverage is closely connected to the Toronto Blessing, there is lots about how the church coped with it, and relationships to other churches: see, for example, this entry in the Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism as well as this book. StAnselm (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the church became notable in the 1990s due to the Toronto Blessing, and remains one of the best-known and influential churches in the global charismatic movement. It therefore has a status of its own and requires a separate article. I am sure it would be straightforward to find numerous references to it in reliable sources. SmilingFace (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing enough independents sources to verify notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This debate are evidence of our endemic problem with presentism and paywalls. I ran a quick proquest news archive (paywalled) search on "Toronto Airport Vineyard" and up came many, in-depth articles about this church. I added the first one as a source, it is about the split from the Vineyard denomination. and is in the Ottawa Citizen, a non-local big-city daily. There was lots more, certaily enough to create a good article. The catch is that much of the in-depth coverage was back in the 90s - only 20 years ago but its paywalled. So editors like Doc James (above) and the Nom are not seeing it. This is a huge problem for us.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I support the argument made by others above that this church is notable as the historic origin of the Toronto Blessing, which was a significant part of the history of Charismatic/Pentecostal Christianity in the 1990s. SJK (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J947 18:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary Church of Santa Ana

Calvary Church of Santa Ana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable church, no coverage in reliable sources independent of subject. Jrheller1 (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I have reverted to a better, less spammy version of the article and added a reference. However, I can't find any other coverage in reliable, independant sources. I don't think there is enough here to prove notability, but I am willing to change my !vote if any more sources can be found. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)@Sarahj2107: to take a second look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did a modest expand source. I like to check sources before dismissing a church as non-notable, and find that one of the crucial aspects of checking is to get the search term right, in this case, I searched "Calvary Chursh" + "Santa Ana" instead of "Calvary Church of Santa Ana" What came up on a Proquest news archives search was over 1,000 news articles about funerals held at the church. The sheer volume indicated that this is no small-potatoes church. So I scanned a few of the pages, clicking on those article that were not news accounts of funerals. Turns out that it is - or at least was at the time it dedicated its enormous campus - the largest Church in Orange County - a populous County dense with churches (I mean that literally, this is conservative Christian territory); half the member states of the United Nations have fewer people than Orange County. Very large, notable congregation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A local church with 4500 members is probably large enough to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They had 4500 members in 1992. They probably have fewer members than that today since most churches have been shrinking over the last two decades. Regardless of the number of members today, this is a fallacious argument. There are people with millions of subscribers on YouTube who don't warrant their own article on Wikipedia. The most recent sources E. M. Gregory provided are from more than twenty years ago; they both deal with a sex scandal. There is no ongoing significant coverage of the church in non-local media. Jrheller1 (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrheller1: Notability is not temporary, it doesn't matter that the sources are from 20 years ago they still count towards establishing notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But there was never any significant coverage. The only coverage was the very brief coverage relating to the sex scandal back in 1992 (and the only major newspaper reporting was LA times). The reference from 1967 is a notice that a new sanctuary was being built; this is no more significant than a birth notice or obituary in the New York Times. Jrheller1 (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Mattos

Karen Mattos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined a CSD for this musician, but was reverted, so I'm bringing discussion here. I am neutral. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOAPBOX and this article is clearly a case of WP:G11, provided that there are no reliable WP:SOURCES cited. It is an advert of a rookie singer with no trusted sources to prove her WP:Notability (see WP:SPIP section). Andrespigariol (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This and this look like reliable sources, but I don't know enough Portuguese to do work with them. I do know, however, that a verified recording contract with Raul Gil is hardly "a rookie singer". Have you checked the Portuguese Wikipedia? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coments Ritchie333 (talk) (cont). They are reliable sources. NPOV Gospel Prime is one of the largest news portals in the religious segment and one of the most visited sites in Brazil.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • ::: Keep --Jcard30 (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC) It has reliable sources that qualify it for minimum criterion 11 of NATIONAL ROTATION BY MAJOR TV NETWORK this makes her a notable artist. . Until they prove otherwise in plausible objections to the removal of the article. She is a television contest finalist from Brazil. Moreover has multiple sources citing his name on the subject including official website of the Television Channel SBT SBT just look carefully. Regards![reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glayton Modise

Glayton Modise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Attempted to redirect, which kept being reverted with, quite honestly, nonsensical explanations. No indication that this person passes notability criteria. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 17:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not well written, but the Glayton article makes reference to Frederick as: "...the father of only son Glayton Modise." Glayton thus appears to be the son. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are right -- I found this quote: "Bishop Glayton Modise, who has died in Johannesburg at the age of 76, was the leader of the International Pentecostal Holiness Church, which has 350 branches and more than three million members in Southern Africa.
He inherited the leadership in 1998 from his father, Frederick Modise." "Obituary: Glayton Modise, head of ZCC breakaway church," Chris Barron, 2016-02-21 This may prove useful in sorting out this mess.96.59.183.125 (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for missing that in this article. I was looking at the father's article, which was unclear, but I fixed it here.96.59.183.125 (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 05:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- As the leader of 350 churches, Glayton was in a position similar to that of the bishop or archbishop in a major denomination. Accordingly, he is certainly notable. The current article is hardly more than a stub, but that is not grounds for deletion. Are there any newspaper obituaries? Peterkingiron (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that I posted his obit earlier, right here. Was that what you were looking for, & somehow overlooked? (It's all good : we all overlook stuff, since we're only human.)
Yes, the Obituary in the South Africa Sunday Times is liked above. Having read it, I am all the more convinced that this is a keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, very good. While you weighed in on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erika_Grey, another article on the chopping block, I notice you didn't vote. Since your last comment there, much discussion, especially pro, but also con, has ensued & developed. Do you think you could take another look and weigh in some more? It's been relisted. Moreover, the article is more solid since some recent edits to Erika Grey. Thanks.96.59.129.57 (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep added a few of the major South African papers that covered him. A number of articles during this tenure, teh church was a big deal and campaigning politicians used to stop by, producing article that describe the Church's scale and buildings. When he died, there was a battle over who would run the church; involving a son, Modise's two rival wives, and thousands of people mobbing courts where some aspect of teh church's afairs were being settled. Also a good deal of violence. It would be nice if someone felt equal to the challenge of producing a good article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 05:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J947 02:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The World Tomorrow (radio and television)

The World Tomorrow (radio and television) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been the subject of some pretty bizarre argufying over the claim that the 2004 reboot is different. Looking into these claims, I checked the sources. Only one of them meets WP:RS, and it's an obituary of Art Gilmore that namechecks this subject. The other sources are either primary (e.g. trademark filings cited as sources for the existence of trademarks) or not independent, being affiliated with Herbert W. Armstrong. The sources do not establish WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I just did a search and found a few secondary sources for the Julian Assange TV show on Russia Today[1] and for Bruce McCall’s cover story in The New Yorker[2] but all the references to the show by the church seem to be from church publications. I am not seeing any independent evidence of notability. Plus, the article is a magnet for disputes after one or more church splits, each side claiming to be the true continuation of the original church and the original radio show. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - where appropriate - into the Armstrong article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Sadly, the only good way to take care of this dispute is to "send it to a nice farm". KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found some third-party coverage here and here and others through Google Books... I'm not saying that there's enough to meet notability guidelines (nor that there isn't), just noting the existence of such. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I grew up watching The World Tomorrow with Garner Ted Armstrong up in Montreal. This was may possibly be a notable show. I can find such book refs as this, this, this, this, this, and this -- all from page one of the Gbooks results. There's no shortage out there. I'm searching for "The World Tomorrow" + "Garner Ted Armstrong", btw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just looked at those references. They are the types of mention that WP:GNG says do not establish notability. You need to show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Significant coverage" means that the source addresses the topic directly and in detail. "Significant coverage" is more than a trivial mention, which is what the sources you found (and which I had found when I did my search) contain. They do justify a prominent mention of The World Tomorrow on the Garner Ted Armstrong page, which we already have. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that taken as a whole, there's more than trivial coverage here. But the fact that program was clearly internationally syndicated -- since I watched here on a Montreal local station for years -- means that it meets WP:TVSERIES, as well: "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope)." Of course, the "network" would in this case not be literal, it would be some combination of individual stations in what must have been first-run syndication, but international in scope. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it was syndicated per se; it seems more like a show that would've simply purchased airtime, like a half-hour ad, and that puts a strain on its appearance in various markets as an indicator of notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I hadn't considered that. It's quite possible I suppose, as part of the church's outreach. It aired on Sunday mornings. I'm moving to weak keep, above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at episodes of the current series bearing the name (I am among those unconvinced that it's the same show in a technical sense) on YouTube, I see that they are 28-minutes-and-some-seconds long... i.e., there's no room for ads in the middle of the episode. That means that they are almost certainly brokered programming; a current half-hour meant to have ad placement would be about 6 minutes shorter. From my very slight memories of the earlier version, it was likely the same. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who watched the show on the local station in Saskatoon, Canada, I can attest to the fact that I don't recall them ever having paid commercial ads within the show, just ads for World Tomorrow publication. However something that needs to be pointed out is at least in the 1970s Sunday-morning religious programming - at least on Canadian TV stations - never aired with regular advertising. I don't think the stations allowed it. So Day of Discovery, Rex Humbard, and any of the others that aired at that time aired without standard commercials. One other point: paid programming usually didn't warrant its own TV Guide listings (referring to the magazine), but World Tomorrow did, albeit it was identified as "Garner Ted Armstrong" as per the standard format where shows hosted by people were usually listed under the host's name (i.e. Johnny Carson, not "Tonight"). My vote on this is to keep though having just dipped my toe into this article there are definitely some edit war-related issues happening. 23skidoo (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I certainly cannot speak to the specifics of the Canadian situation, brokered programming is the default for such broadcasts in the US; their regular presence in a time slot may be more what got them in the listings than the question of whether they were paid programming. (Certainly, we've had listings for things like Easy Money (TV series), a primetime series where an outside organization leased time from a network.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As NatGertler says I don't think this was syndicated. It was paid placement. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Effectively an infomercial? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When a church buys air time, runs no commercials other than encouraging people to join the church. and the church just happens to teach "triple tithing" (giving 30% of your gross pretax income to the church)[3] I think "infomercial" is a fair description. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They could have made it look more like a normal show by instead running commercials for the Vegematic or the Pocket Fisherman during breaks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, but it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:GNG. I have seen claims by affiliated churches[4][5][6] and by a critic[7] that republican senator Bob Dole ordered preservation of the World Tomorrow television episodes in the Library of Congress, but I cannot find a reliable source confirming that claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I expect it's true, but not that impressive; that would seem like a politician writing a letter on behalf of a constituent/contributor. It's not on the same level of something being named to the American film preservation list or somesuch. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep User:Shawn in Montreal memory is reliable. This program was a bid deal back in the day. Editors have run into our endemic problem: searches fail to readily produce sources on stuff that happened before the internet. I am basing my keep on a paywalled Proquest news archive search. Paywalls contribute to WP's unfortunate presentism bias.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added 2 sources. Copious, reliable, in-depth sources come up on a news archive search of "The World Tomorrow" + Armstrong. An editor with access to a news archive and time could readily make this into a good article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are those additions:[8] Because they are paywalled, I would ask E.M. Gregory to reproduce the wording where he believes that the requirements of WP:GNG have been met here ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. 'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..."). Reproducing such material is allowed under fair use. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I'm not against merging (I'm an inclusionist), merging this into an already large article about the author would be cramming too much into one small space. Easily notable: WP:RS. Even less-well-known authors are notable, so much more Armstrong.96.59.183.125 (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep somehow -- This seems to be the lead broadcast ministry of Armstrong, who was on the fringes between evangelical Christianity and heresy. Radio Church of God, which he established from this program, still exists (though renamed); that link is a redirect to Grace Communion International. If it is merged, that (rather than Armstrong) should be the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' Wow! It's pretty embarrassing when your program is more noteworthy than you. (And it would be kept, with you merging into it!) Ha ha hah... Well, I guess Armstrong isn't going to complain to much about it. In all seriousness, I like your logic: His program may be his identity, so maybe it should be kept, and him merged into it. But in any case, either he or his program should be kept. Maybe not both, though, since a redirect and/or reference could be used.96.59.169.231 (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 11:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian politics in Australia

Christian politics in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is simply a list of links to political parties and aligned organisations that serves no real value as an article in itself, that could not be handled by a category. There is no substantive text, discussion nor evidence or verifiable sources, or evidence of development. The topic already covered at length and more appropriately at the Christianity in Australia article already. Creating editor declined PROD. -- Whats new?(talk) 22:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not an article in its current form; totally plausible topic for an actual article one day though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I note that the article creator, Torygreen84, was not informed of this deletion discussion. Anyway, it looks like he or she was in the middle of creating the article. I really dislike deletion tags being slapped on articles that are in the process of being written, so my preference is to wait to allow Torygreen84 time to expand it. StAnselm (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article was PRODed and the creator dePRODed, saying in their edit summary "that's why the wiki community can help" which suggests the editor was reliant on others to continue the article. This AfD is not because the article is incomplete, but because there is no viable reason for it -- Whats new?(talk) 23:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Topic is certainly notable and encyclopedic. Article as it stands is unobjectionable except for its brevity, but the list of actual Australian political parties is valid. In effect, it is an article outline awaiting content. I say keep it, since articles that exist often attract content, but creating an article and even gathering that useful-looking ( I don't know much about Aussie politics) list of extinct and extant Christian parties takes the kind of work that often makes me think, this important topic needs an article, but starting one is too daunting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very few of the conservative parties are officially Christian - we would need a nuanced discussion describing in what way they're "Christian" (whatever that means). A mere list isn't good enough. StAnselm (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"officially" 3 on the list are not Christian, but all of the listed parties have demonstrably Christian origins and/or agendas that quite openly described as supporting or drawing on "Christian" values. (interpretations of Christian vales may differ.) That said, I'm not opposed to draftify. Merely I prefer to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the topic is better covered in the encompassing article Christianity in Australia and via categories. Still no establishment of why the topic is notable enough for its own topic, or why the aforementioned article can't handle it. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I point out that this article is not just brief, it actually contains no content apart from a restatement of the article title, and a "See Also" section. If we want to get technical, it's probably a valid CSD A3 scenario, although it probably doesn't need that much to get there. If I have some time this evening I might try and write a couple of sentences to upgrade it from "no content" to "stub" at least. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
All you have done is flesh out a topic with mostly unsourced content, which is better covered in the encompassing article Christianity in Australia. You have not established why this topic is notable enough to warrant its own article -- Whats new?(talk) 22:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 19:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per consensus of opinion that this person's body of work doesn't meet notability criteria and that mention of her in Reliable Sources lacks significant coverage, being related only to a single event. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Grey

Erika Grey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The bulk of the references are actually just author bios on various websites. The publisher "pedante press" appears to only publish Grey's book making them self-published and not inherently notable. Justeditingtoday (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link in my comment above is a gNews search. It "found no mentions of this book" in any secondary sources. It did produce 1 hit, to an online bookseller. 96.59.153.17, what is needed are WP:RS that discuss & describe the book. things like book reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 18:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This author has been on Coast to Coast AM, at this profile, has authored many books on Amazon.com, and has been cited by The Christian Post in this article. I did not see it, but another editor mentions that she is cited in this article in the New Yorker. (I'm jealous that I'm not as notable!) In all honesty, somewhat borderline, but she definitely makes the grade as notable enough to have an entry and not get deleted, by a small, but definite margin: she has made her mark on the world, and our obligation is to report (not make up, and not out-of-hand "delete") the news. Erika Grey is newsworthy, and thus noteworthy of an entry into an Encyclopedia on the subject on Bible prophecy as it relates to the world's geopolitical developments.96.59.153.17 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)— [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete: I don't see any notability criteria giving a pass to people with books sold on Amazon (half the frigging world can say that much), to those who've been guests on CoastToCoastAM, or who've been namedropped in NN publications. Where's the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as the GNG requires? What part of WP:AUTHOR does she fulfill? I don't see it. Nha Trang Allons! 21:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Calling the New Yorker an "NN publication" seems a bit over the top. StAnselm (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, StAnselm (talk), but calling ALL of these in sum-total to be 'no name' publications is even worse: Sure, some are less worthy news sources than others, but the "lesser" news sources do nothing but ADD to the cake. The cake is there, and if there are some so-called 'no name publications,' they are merely icing on the cake: The cake is quite solid.96.59.153.17 (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what defense St. Anselm might give, but I will point out that after having cleaned up the article (and, as I said, above, no, I'm not a WP:SPA: I edit elsewhere, but my IP changes]]), the case for notability or newsworthiness has increased by about one order of magnitude. You can see the article page, and judge for yourself: I may not be perfect, but my edits are all made in WP:Good Faith, and, on balance, apparently helpful & accepted by others, but take a look: This one is worth saving.96.59.153.17 (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A number of others have discovered numerous credible secondary sources citing the woman. I imagine more could be found, but that would require Googling and get me a headache. I'll leave it to the experts to find any more sources, if needed.47.192.27.215 (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)— 47.192.27.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I just now noticed this: http://www.erikagrey.com/p/events-radio-tv-conferences.html her personal page lists her appearences, and while I can't verify the absolute accuracy of them, the few about which I know, on this list, are correct: She is one VERY BUSY person, and is like "Savoir-Faire," she is "everywhere!". This, of course, does not (all by itself) warrant or justify an Encyclopedia entry, but it sure doesn't hurt. Also, I would add that while she is probably only in some "professional organization" directories or "religious" encylopedias (and hinted by her copious & ubiquitous presence on their online counterparts), her possible absence in a "regular" encyclopedia (say: Brittanica as but one example) is not necessary fatal to her entry here: Times are a changing, and so we must change with them: An online encyclopedia e.g., Wikipedia is (or should be) more inclusive than one you might find in your local public library. So, based on these factors, she seems appropriate here (even if, I admit, not as 'notable' as, say, Dr. Billy Graham).(Google lookup on phrase above and related video - funny!. My 0.02 worth.96.59.160.94 (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- There are about as many interpreters of Biblical eschatology as commentators. If PeDante Press really publishes nothing but her work, it is self-published (or effectively so), in which case the article should be treated as a mere ADVERT and deleted. Her two books on beating addiction are both published in the same year, which also does not inspire confidence. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, you raise some good points. I did not know about this aspect of her publishing, but I did a little research and find that NOVEL RANK lists only one book as having been published by them: "The Seat of the Antichrist." However, AMAZON at this link shows a bunch of books, all by her as an author, but every single book in this list has a co-author other than Grey: "by Erika Grey and Lawrence D Palmer" are the authors for one book and "Erika Grey and Lia Frederick" for the rest. The very fact that Amazon lists more then NovelRank suggests to me that these rankers are not exactly comprehensive. (But I would not imagine much would get past Amazon.com. Her authorship, if it were the only thing, might be suspect if she was self-published and didn't sell a lot. But many others think she is an expert, so the book issue is icing on the cake, and not the cake itself. Now, http://www.erikagrey.com/p/events-radio-tv-conferences.html lists her schedule. As I said before, I can not vouch for the accuracy of her list, but in several cases, I did some checking, and all the entries I checked were actual cases where she was a guest. The fact that she is a guest on a regular basis (and not as a "one-time" thing), indicates that many others objectively consider her some sort of expert. Myself, as smart as I am, still, by contrast, I'm very lucky to get ONE letter to the editor, or in rare occasion, a guest column, published. And, I have never been a guest on any program, at least in recent memory. I am lucky to call in, and this is in spite of my brilliance, the fact I've written a book, and also accomplished some very impressive things in the legal field, which was not the degree with which I graduated from college. (It was in other than law; I studied hard biosciences.) So, you see, unless you can put together such a solid record of being cited in tap-ranked journals, or put on numerous shows on a regular basis, then I would not stand on equal ground: whether her views are correct or not is not actionable (tho she does seem mostly accurate, at the least). That many others, objectively, think so, when she makes the TV, talk show, or radio show tour on a regular basis [17], and/or gets cited by credible reliable sources is a valid metric. That she has also books is merely additional, not substantive. (But, ten or so books is still impressive; and I would faint under such a heavy TV talk/radio show, and schedule for conferences, unless I devoted myself singly to that: The sheer volume of her TV/radio/conference appearances indicates that she is no small-potatoes expert, in the objective eyes of numerous news media/conferences/etc. So I scanned a few of her appearances, as I said earlier, and verified as accurate at least those few I checked: I might be stronger, faster, and smarter than Grey in a head-to-head battle, but in her specialty, she is much better than me. Here is evidence (even if not proof) of her notability on this head: others (who invite her HERE on a regular basis think so). This implies notability.96.59.183.125 (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)— 96.59.183.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While there is disagreement here, I would point out two things: First, notability is inherent in the WP:RS, not our views of them or the subject of the article. Secondly, a good number of comments, on both sides of the issue, have been discussed on this discussion page (and elsewhere, when you include the talk page, Talk:Erika_Grey, individual talk pages, and even in edit comments. One overlooked point was the lack of comparability between a "physical" encyclopedia, with its inherent limitations on space, and an electronic, or online, encyclopedia. I won't reinvent the wheel, but rather refer to the already-robust discussion above, as required reading material for anyone before they aspire to vote. Also, I do find it odd that nothing has been done, even though it has been slightly over a week since the last or most-recent relisting on the 15th.96.59.177.243 (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)— 96.59.177.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete — fails WP:AUTHOR. Coverage in sources is mostly either trivial, incidental, or one-event. Body of work is obviously self-published and not critically cited. Similarly fails WP:GNG due to lack of extensive, significant coverage. Pretty much at best, as far as attempting to establish expertise, we would have [18], which is solely due to a single appearance (Coast to Coast AM, a show that basically also gives random appearances to the Ancient Aliens/tinfoil-hat/pseudoscience crowd) and is probably de facto a self-published media-release biography. She's admittedly covered in exactly 3 news articles ([19] [20] and [21]) that all popped up at the same time (inauguration), which even more seems to reflect the coverage as, at best, WP:BIO1E (i.e., "you'll never guess what some people are saying about Trump!"). --slakr\ talk / 07:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mostly as per Slakr. She's a self-published author who isn't truly recognized as an expert in her field, and who has attracted limited attention from non-notable media appearances. The limited coverage in reliable sources appears to have been around the time of the inauguration and has not continued. Mackensen (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) feminist 14:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Waterhouse

Steven Waterhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally unremarkable Doctor (and author) and article seems to be quite promotional. I can find few mentions of him and virtually no coverage in independent reliable sources. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found little in the way of coverage of him but by all means, if it can be found, that's great. The other issue as I've noted is that the article appears to be little more than promo as well. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 11:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

remove

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

No articles proposed for deletion at this time


Categories for discussion

Miscellaneous

  • None currently
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Christianity&oldid=770043196"