This page serves to coordinate the various discussions taking place throughout the Christianity-related project talkpages. Even though , there are numerous Christianity-related projects, with many different conversations going on at the same time. This Noticeboard hopes to achieve some kind of order in keeping track of the various goings-on. You are welcome to add to the
discussion.
12 Jul 2024 –
Review Youth Canvassing(
talk ·
·
hist) was PRODed by
Catfurball (
t ·
c): 1# This article is not notable, 2# Most likely this article was created by violating Wikipedia:COI (The creator came on Wikipedia only one day to create this junk article), 3# This article violates Wikipedia:Advertisement and 4# This article violates ...
Couldn't find much reliable coverage on this topic to justify
WP:GNG. The only source in the article doesn't mention the name "Himna kosovskih junaka" or "Hriste Bože", which is another common name, it only mentions the lyrics, quoted by a single source in a passing mention. 🔥
Jalapeño🔥Stupid stuff I did09:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment This seems to be focusing on the Singapore organization only, when most of the Google News coverage I see is for the United States organization(s). Maybe it doesn't need to be deleted, but rearchitected to cover the PRIMARYTOPIC.
Jclemens (
talk)
21:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails GNG: The only candidate who used the "radical Christian" label is Rousseau, and contemporary coverage about him is not significant. Newspaper coverage shows that the three candidates in 1967 actually represented the
Ralliement des créditistes, with the label "Créditiste".
Helpful Raccoon (
talk)
20:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No evidence of notability, warning has been in place for over 7 years. I cannot find sources to indicate notability has been attained since the last nomination in 2011, which was closed as no consensus.
glman (
talk)
18:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak delete: Rather prolific author and is talked about a ton in the religious media, but a distinct lack of book reviews in "mainstream" media (for lack of a better word). This
[1] review in religious media is typical... Some scattered mentions here
[2] or
[3]. We'd need more of these last two types of sources for this to have a chance to be notable here. Was hoping this would pass AUTHOR.
Oaktree b (
talk)
00:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I have added another reference which squeezes him over the line on
WP:GNG. But the Google scholar citations are actually pretty good, including 98 for Tactics.
StAnselm (
talk)
23:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:NLIST with no evidence that reliable, secondary, independent sources discuss Australian female Anglican bishops as a group versus discussing them individually. (The sources listed under "Further Reading" describe the experiences or cover women clergy more generally or all women Anglican clergy in Australia, not just bishops. The one exception, a book by
Muriel Porter is not an independent source, as Porter is an elected member of the Anglican Church's governing synod and described in her Wikipedia article as an "advocate" who is "active in campaigning" for women's ordination in the church.) Meanwhile, the page fails
WP:NOPAGE as a
WP:CONTENTFORK of
List of female Anglican bishops.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: I disagree with most of the points you make as reasons for deletion. For example I don't think there needs to be one source dedicated to just female Anglican bishops in Australia, but a source can cover bishops in the Anglican communion generally as well as other clergy. The only point I can see as valid is that the list could be seen as a content fork of
List of female Anglican bishops. I admit I only saw that other list after I created this one. In the case of it needing to be merged I think it would have been better to message me or put something on the Talk page about merging rather than marking it for deletion. I have marked this comment as Keep for now only to see if other editors want to comment. However if there is enough support to merge List of women bishops with List of female Anglican bishops... I am happy to do that and I will then continue to update the List of female bishops with the Australian ones because that is one of my areas of focus on wikipedia.
LPascal (
talk)
05:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Extra comment: In case I am asked to find more sources on women bishops, I'm sure I could find one here on this list but I don't have time to do that just now
https://search.worldcat.org/lists/1b9e2384-b013-48e0-b45b-911ee8d3ca3f And I think it would be impractical to expect to find a source who was a journalist or historian writing about the Anglican church who was not in some way connected to the church. If anyone writes about ordained women in the Anglican church it is usually because they are for or against and rarely are they "independent".
LPascal (
talk)
05:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Thanks
Bearian for the Keep. I am happy to both keep the article/list or merge it with List of female Anglican bishops. If consensus is reached on Keep I will certainly add in more refs to show women bishops in Australia are much discussed as a group. If the agreement is to merge, I will add them into the List of female Anglican bishops. If I merge the lists, whoever is responsible, please do not delete the old one until I have added names and refs to the LOFAB. As some of the bishops will not yet be bluelinked because they won't have an article, I will need to keep the refs in the list to show they are bishops.
On that note
Dclemens1971 whatever happens to the two lists, I would appreciate your help in creating articles for the new women bishops as your user page states you focus on bishops on Wikipedia. I've been waiting for another editor to create articles for those three women bishops, but no one has started one yet, unless it's in someone's sandbox.
LPascal (
talk)
07:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I would urge anyone who comments in this discussion to look on the talk page from (one of) the subjects of the article.
GnocchiFan (
talk)
16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is too notable to delete. Maryam Rostampour is arguably notable as well, despite the fact that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is the only one of the two with continuing coverage. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)01:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If agreement is that there is enough information to split, I think this is a good idea. Otherwise, I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh's name be removed from this article per request and this article moved to
Maryam Rostamour-Keller per your suggestion.
GnocchiFan (
talk)
22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Split I think it is reasonable to have this specific article deleted. However, I would be open to the thought of having a separate article for Maryam Rostampour if she is notable enough. Marziyeh Amirizadeh on the surface level appears to be a notable figure (I have not done much research into her life though), so I would be more comfortable with having a separate article for her.
❤HistoryTheorist❤18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
A person claiming to be one of the subjects of the article requested that it be deleted because they don't want to be associated with the other person? The title is probably inappropriate and would be more appropriate as something else but this does appear to be a notable event.
Traumnovelle (
talk)
22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Note that the editor claiming to be the subject says on the talk page that she paid $300 to have her Wikipedia article written. Is this the current draft, created by an editor who has edited no other topic?
PamD22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Evin Prison. This is a case of
WP:BLP1E; Rostampour and Amirizadeh got a lot of coverage related to their prison ordeal and release, but it wasn't sustained. Amirizadeh's run for state office wouldn't be independently notable. With the apparent request for deletion by one of the subjects, the balance tilts more strongly to delete.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
17:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge as suggested. Yes, there’s some coverage, but I’m concerned about the BLP violations and lack of ongoing coverage.
Bearian (
talk)
02:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply