- Jonas Pilling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The justification for this subject having an article is the long-running dispute between him and his parishioners, which did attract some attention from local press at the time, but it seems that much of this content could simply be rolled into the article on St Mark's Church, Huddersfield, where he was the vicar for a number of years. It is not clear to me why Pilling himself needs an article of his own. Leonstojka (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- James Sunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Don't see how this individual is notable enough for a page, both in the general sense and in the parameters for which clerics are notable. Much of the article is unreferenced, and some of the sources at the bottom are only brief mentions. One actually focuses on the son of the subject. Leonstojka (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Traders Point Christian Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Only one source is independent and significant. User:Namiba 14:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Indiana. User:Namiba 14:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: First hit in Gsearch is their own website, then it's off into un-RS... The article uses primary sources now and I don't find coverage of this church. Having the fastest growing congregation in 2016 isn't terribly notable and the rest isn't helpful for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There's significant coverage in a book (see Diamond, 2003), as well as in Indianapolis Monthly. The Indy Star coverage available can support facts in the article but doesn't go toward notability because (even though some is in great depth) it's generally coverage of new locations and inclusion in "fastest growing" lists that WP:ORGCRIT excludes. Even so, the Diamond book and Indianapolis Monthly piece should cross the bar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Babylon Mystery Religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not remotely notable. The only sources I could find covering these are primary sources, which don't really fulfill the notability guidelines. Additionally, the guidelines for books can't save the article as it hasn't won any awards or got any reviews. OhHaiMark (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WVTN-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Prince Ludwig of Wettin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am not convinced this person exists. Louis Frederick of Saxe-Hildburghausen is listed as his father, but that article says he was childless. He is listed as being made a cardinal but none of the lists of cardinals created between 1741 and 1830 list his name. He is listed as an archbishop of Olomouc but List of Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops of Olomouc does not mention him or have any gaps during his lifetime. The German Wikipedia article that text is apparently copied from is about a different person. I cannot find him mentioned in the online copies of either of the article's references. Various Google / online book searches only turn up text from this article and unrelated princes called Ludwig. Mgp28 (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, and Religion. Mgp28 (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a misreading of sources or a hoax. Mccapra (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Austria, and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No citations. Contradicts other articles that say his supposed father was childless. Probable hoax. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability. And the contradiction with other articles is not really helping. Keivan.fTalk 13:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. Article creator only made 4 mainspace edits. C679 06:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Church of Ireland Historical Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. Sources cited in the article are all primary. Searching on Google Scholar and Google Books, I was able to find mentions of the COIHS in citations and acknowledgements, but no significant independent coverage. Searching online, I was able to find some concerning, scandalous, coverage that still appears to fall short of the ORGCRITE line: two letters to the editor in The Independent ([1], [2]) alleging that the COIHS played a key role in covering up a child sex abuse scandal in the Irish church, and two articles in The Phoenix making the same assertion in passing ([3], [4]). I was able to find exactly one likely (but paywalled) example of significant coverage in an independent RS ([5]) reporting on the same allegations, although even if we assume the absolute best of this source, we fall short of ORGCRITE's requirement of multiple such sources. I tried to look for potential merge targets on Wikipedia but didn't find anything promising. signed, Rosguill talk 14:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Christianity, and Ireland. signed, Rosguill talk 14:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator source analysis. I also tried to identify a redirect, but the organization appears independent from the Church of Ireland and I couldn't identify another option superior to deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. My own WP:BEFORE returns the same coverage/mentions that the nominator identified in their own. Namely things like ROTM announcements in the Irish Times and mentions in letters to the editor in the Irish Independent. Or this in The Phoenix. A search in RTÉ returns only a single similar/fleeting passing mention. The only substantial coverage I can find is the same article (titled "Historical society accused of 'rewriting' its own past" and subtitled "Church of Ireland Historical Society removes references to founder following accusations of child sexual abuse") noted by the nom. Which, on its own, doesn't establish independent notability of the org. I also can't conceive of target for a redirect. Or other WP:ATD. Guliolopez (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, regretfully, since my paternal grandmother was a member of the CoI. There's just not enough sourcing. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Craig_Considine_(academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am unconvinced that the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines for academics. The article subject is a teaching professor with limited research output. Their research has not made a significant impact in their scholarly field (they seem to publish introductions for popular presses, published reviews of their other work is critical). They have not recieved a highly prestigious academic award or honor at national/internationl level. They are not an elected member of a highly selective/prestigious society. The subject does not hold a distinguished professor position or appointment at a major institution, nor have they been named chair or equivalent. The subject has not held a highest-level administrative appointment. The person appears not to have made a signifcant impact outside of academia in their academic capacity, where they are quoted in publications it is usually promotional material for one of their porjects. The subject has not been editor/EiC of a major/well-established academic journal. Other contextual clues indicate that this page exists purely as a promotional platform for the subject. There is very little activity on this page other than IP editors vandalizing the page to introduce promotional content, and then other editors removing or clarifying these edits. The creator of this page has since been banned for their promotional activities. I mean to disrespect to the subject of this article, but I struggle to see how they meet the criteria or need for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your platform and visibility as a junior academic, but I would suggest that this is much better accomplished through a personal website and social media channels. Having a cursory glance at the department the article subject belongs to, there are many far more senior scholars among his colleagues who are not similarly represented on this site. After spending significant time trying to improve this page, I doubt that with the available material it will rise to the level of inclusion. I welcome other editors' feedback and perspectives if I have been too harsh in my judgement. Boredintheevening (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- (correcting typo: line read "I mean no disrespect", not "I mean to disrespect") Boredintheevening (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Christianity, Islam, Ireland, England, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep but trim. A lecturer position at a US university is unpromising for WP:PROF notability, and his Google Scholar profile has only one publication with significant citations [6], so that leaves WP:AUTHOR as the only plausible remaining possibility. The article (in the version I checked) lists reviews in the Wall Street Journal and an academic journal, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, for his book People of the Book (references 11 and 12) and in Anthropology Today for his film Journey into America (reference 23). It lists a few other reviews but I am not as convinced of their reliability. My searches turned up only one more, a review in Diaspora Studies for his book Islam, race and pluralism in the Pakistani Diaspora [7]. I think that's borderline, but on the positive side of borderline. On the other hand, the article was horribly puffed up with uninteresting childhood anecdotes, unsourced claims, and the like, even after User:Boredintheevening had trimmed a lot of it. I trimmed more, but there appears to be plenty of unreliably-sourced material remaining in the "Documentary and Books" that should be cut back even more heavily. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for contributing to this discussion and for editing out some of the puff from the article. I want to defer to your experience, but reading WP:AUTHOR - the subject certainly doesn't meet bullet points 1, 2 and 4. For bullet point 3, I acknowledge there are a handful of reviews (fewer when amateur sources and promotional material is excluded) but it seems like not a huge amount to hang the existence of the article on. I'm trying to resist being overly zealous, but the whole thing strikes me as a subject that's been very committed to self promotion (especially re:COI edits on the article) and hasn't really received much recognition or attention from professional bodies and peers. Boredintheevening (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm kinda in the same boat as the nominator. In that, while I'm less familiar with WP:NACADEMIC, it doesn't seem to me that the related criteria are met. While the existence of reviews in the Wall Street Journal and Middle East Monitor are possibly contributory, I'm not sure (on their own) they reach the thresholds expected by criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Personally I cannot advocate for a keep. And am left on the fence. (I would note that the bulk of the promotion added to previous versions of this article didn't appear to come from the article's creator. But from an apparent COI/SPA account which added the bulk of the largely uncited puff in Aug 2021.)
- Keep. Satisfies criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC as "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." (See The Independent, New Indian Express, IBTimes, and Gulf News.) I think it could also plausibly justify WP:GNG with the WP:SIGCOV in the Houston Chronicle, Needham Times, and the discussion of his broader work in the WSJ review. Meanwhile, People of the Book would qualify as a notable WP:NBOOK on the basis of its reviews in two reliable source outlets. (Middle East Monitor is not such an outlet.) That said, this article is still overloaded with primary sources, unreliable sources, affiliated sources and needs substantial work to improve it -- but deletion is not cleanup. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I want to thank @Boredintheevening for your work improving the article in the face of a wave of disruptive COI edits. The article was very problematic before you turned your attention to it, and while it still needs work it's in much better shape. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Simon Hansford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Most of the sources are not in-depth or are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable bio which only has two sentences about his ministry. The rest is about his education and family background. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable as an important faith figure in New South Wales’ third biggest Christian denomination. All Moderators of the Uniting Church should be profiled rather than deleting them so we have record of church leadership. SproulesLane (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No inherent notability in his position. Where are the sources to meet WP:BIO? LibStar (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Communion of Western Orthodox Churches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only independent source given, Thöle, only mentions the CWOC in passing. I can't find any source that actually covers their activities. There's no evidence that this communion is more than a loose agreement of three small like-minded denominations. Leefeniaures audiendi audiat 21:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Article has been PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While autocephalic churches in communion with a significant church are almost always notable national branches of a church located outside that church's home country, this does not appear to be the situation for the "communion" among the three churches that are the subject of this article.[8] I would consider changing my vote if independent sources were found or the significant concepts and French sources were explained and verified. Ben Azura (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Adventist schools in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Prod reason states "This list is made up of mostly schools that are not notable and also there are no references it has been like this from day one that it was created". As I am conducting a procedural AfD, I am neutral on the matter. --Lenticel (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Adventist universities in the Philippines. As far as sourcing goes, I wouldn't know what is available in reliability, but I figured reducing the list to be just the colleges and universities would be more suitable to WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the majority of Seventh-day Adventist schools in the Philippines are not notable and never will be. And we do not need a separate list for Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities in the Philippines, that is why we have List of Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities. Catfurball (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Before a rename is considered, you have to put forth a good, policy-based argument on why this article should be Kept. A rename can be discussed after an AFD if this article is Kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 30 May 2024 (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.
- Hart and Shepard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NCORP. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - While Harvard magazine and a single article in the Union Leader may be reliable for use in verifying facts, just those two citations together are insufficient for establishing notability. The two publications would appear to not have the circulation/audience necessary to demonstrate notability beyond a small region or special interest niche. The citations do not show that Hart and Shepard is anything close to a household name. CapnPhantasm (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - anything from that period that is even being discussed today in magazine articles is surely noteworthy. An additional source: the "famous Dorothy cloak" made by Hart and Shepard is held by the Shaker Museum, and is discussed in Beverly Gordon's 1990 research paper "Victorian Fancy Goods: Another Reappraisal of Shaker Material Culture". A different take is provided by Antiques and the Arts ("Smalls Bring Big Prices At Willis Henry Shaker Sale" of 4 December 2007) which notes the high prices fetched by the cloaks. I am certain there are numerous other such sources that credibly establish the importance of this brand, back in its heyday. And "Once notable, always notable". Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those article provide in-depth information about the *company* (which is the topic we're looking at here), they all discuss the cloak. HighKing++ 13:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Dorothy Durgin. An article on the "Dorothy Cloak" or the "Shaker Cloak" would appear to meet GNG as a standalone topic, but a topic on this organization/company fails GNG/WP:NCORP and therefore a Delete is in order. A search on Google Books for "Dorothy Cloak" provides lots of suitable references. HighKing++ 09:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and delete, per HighKing. Fails NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
| |
