Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity
Recent changes of Christianity-related talkpages
No changes during the given period match these criteria.


Alerts for Christianity-related articles

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(15 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

(35 more...)

Redirects for discussion

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(5 more...)

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

(1 more...)

Articles for creation

(17 more...)


Christianity Deletion list


Christianity

edit

Synagogue Church building collapse

edit


Synagogue Church building collapse (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 propose merging to Synagogue Church of All Nations per WP:PAGEDECIDE. This is a major part of the church's history and it would be better to have the history in one article instead of spread across two pages. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Thomaskutty

edit


Johnson Thomaskutty (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 know what the standards for citations are for theologians, but his citation record looks pretty weak to me . Not finding any evidence of books reviews that would indicate a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Weak Keep per finding of reviews. Thanks to Jahaza for the digging. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The West, Christians and Jews in Saudi Arabian Schoolbooks

edit


The West, Christians and Jews in Saudi Arabian Schoolbooks (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 do not believe this publication has received significant coverage in reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. In a WP:BEFORE search, I found no suitable sources. The single cited source is primary and the external links do not mention the subject. Jfire (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I do not know and do not care of the GNG has been met because regardless, as an unjustified SPONOUT, merge is the only correct outcome. gidonb (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Signorelli

edit


Michael Signorelli (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)

This page was previously deleted in January 2026 under the title Mike Signorelli and there is still no evidence that this pastor passes WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. A couple new sources have been added since this was recreated, making it ineligible for G5 speedy deletion, but they do not contribute toward notability. Analyzing the sources, they are limited to: brief, relatively trivial mentions not reaching the level of WP:SIGCOV (, , , ), routine coverage of his church but not of him (, ), and promotional regurgitation of his social media posts/commentary or interview content (and thus non-independent) (, , , , , , , , , , , ). His films have zero independent reviews (, ) and I couldn't find any reviews for his books (so there's no pass on WP:NCREATIVE, and I couldn't find any other independent qualifying coverage in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Quite a bit of sourcing in the article is orange per Cite Highlighter, so of average reliability. I don't find anything about this person, and most of the sources are as explained, unhelpful. Oaktree b (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Perhaps it's a bit curmudgeonly of me, but I believe that any article resurrected shortly after deletion at AfD must have a strong case for notability. I get the impression that Signorelli is something of a self-promoter with good media contacts rather than a notable person receiving coverage for his notability. The sources seem insufficient to establish a clear case against the prior consensus. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my discussion in the previous AfD and per Dclemens1971's review, there has been no appreciable sourcing improvement. I think the subject has a potential to become notable as he is a figure known to Christian media (thus my "weak delete" before), but sourcing doesn't indicate notability today. I hope this is a lesson for anyone thinking they can sneak an article into the Wikipedia that isn't ready for inclusion. We...see...you. the Stefen 𝕋ower 19:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning neutral for the most part. There is at least one good independent source (Harper’s Magazine), but most other sourcing appears weaker or routine. I’ll defer to other editors on whether WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV is met.
Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or draftify. I accepted this article from WP:AFC after light editing. I think the article might squeak by WP:GNG. Harper's Magazine is reliable and covers Signorelli and his mileu (briefly, ~2 para). Fox News, less reliable but longer, covers Signorelli, his mileu, and his film. HuffPo and Respect are less reliable but cover Signorelli and his virtual church pivot substantively. CBN is (WP:RSP) partisan, but is only used here to source a quote about "physical healings" at an event Signorelli led. Christian Post / Christian Daily are not generally reliable, IMO, but are mostly reliable in reporting on intra-Christian topics, and Signorelli's deliverance ministry mileu gets significant coverage there. The many sources from the deliverance movement suggest plus the reliable sourcing outside the deliverance movement suggest, IMP, that Signorelli is notable within the deliverance ministry movement and marginally notable outside it. I prefer keep, but if we conclude that general notability is marginal, I'd prefer a draftify given high likelihood of eventual notability. CopyleftEverything (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The best source here is Harper's, but it includes just a single paragraph, not WP:SIGCOV: The pastor Mike Signorelli now delivers an abridged version of his path into demonology. He runs in little circles, overcome by the power of his testimony, and breaks into tongues. Signorelli is at work on his own movie, a Demon Slayer spin-off, and takes a moment to screen a preview. “We’re going to basically do our version of the Marvel Universe, redeemed,” he says into the mic. “How many believe that we just need to keep putting out movies?” The Christian Post/Respect/CBN articles are just social media aggregation regurgitating his posts -- it's not original reporting and thus should not be considered independent coverage. Draftify I'd oppose given that the determination of users to get this page into mainspace means we would likely be back at AfD fairly quickly. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: Question not disagreement: Fox, HuffPo? Respect isn't social media aggregator AFAIK? CopyleftEverything (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The HuffPo piece is an article about Zoom funerals (RIP, those) that quotes Signorelli in a brief passage; it's not SIGCOV. WP:FOXNEWS is of questionable reliability, and the article is promoting Signorelli's movie, not SIGCOV of him. The Respect article ends with The Pastor has a strong message of deliverance and hope—one that has helped the V1 Church to grow. It’s a unique approach to invite free-thinkers and atheists have been influential and will help it to spread its message. Not sure what exactly that is but it sure doesn't sound independent; it sounds like marketing for Signorelli. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: Mulled it over, think you're mostly right. I'd still plead for a draftify. First, I think preserving the page history makes it easier to demand new WP:RS, instead of a new page being submitted without that history to compare. Second, I think the content is notability-adjacent and may be useful someday. :) CopyleftEverything (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sub communione

edit


Sub communione (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)

This reads like a WP:DICDEF. The sources are not used to cite to the meaning of the phrase itself, but to where the phrase can be found: the first one is a Spotify link, the second one is an IMSLP score. Neither are good sources. It's not notable enough as its own phrase for an article, most of the mentions of this phrase is about its use as the subtitle of Bach's chorale prelude. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 10:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Christianity. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 10:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Satisfies GNG, with significant coverage in books and periodicals in Google Books, Google Scholar and the Internet Archive. There are entire periodical articles about this, such as . There is an article in the new Grove encyclopedia: . Searches for "sub communione"+"communion" and "musica sub communione" and "musica sub communionem" bring up a lot of coverage. A few random examples in Google Books would be . This expression referred to music played during the communion, and music played during the communion is the sort of topic that is always going to satisfy GNG. The expression "musica sub communione" is a latin expression that means the same thing as eg "communion music" in English and "kommunionsmusiken" in German etc. And when you search for expressions like that, you get even more coverage. A page move might be appropriate, since there appears to be more than one name. James500 (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand using the sources identified above such as multiple academic papers, Grove encyclopedia coverage and other book sources. The topic passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

St. Francis Institute of Management and Research

edit


St. Francis Institute of Management and Research (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)

Contains massive WP:COPYVIO, especially in the history section. All the creating user did was copy and paste from (), switch up a few words, and call it a day. Some sentences are literally identical to the site Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Christ, Scientist

edit


Church of Christ, Scientist (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)

We don't have separate articles for Catholicism and the Catholic Church, Russian Orthodoxy and the Russian Orthodox Church, Anglicanism, and the Anglican Church, nor Lutheranism and the Lutheran Church. No reason for this article to be separate. I am not sure what, if any content, should be merged from this article to the target, which is a GA. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We probably should have separate articles for Catholicism and the Catholic Church, honestly. As is I think these are meaningfully distinct things. We do a similar split for Scientology. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady Queen of the Missions School

edit

2036 Danish Bible translation

edit


2036 Danish Bible translation (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)

An event 10 years into the future is not notable. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 22:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The year in the title is the targeted date of release. If necessary, could rename to 'New Danish bible translation'. Article demonstrates GNG with widespread coverage of the translation process and methods. Newystats (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of sacred places in Israel

edit


List of sacred places in Israel (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 know Wikipedia lists don’t have to be exhaustive but this one seems a particular mess. Without any definition of what exactly “sacred” means it is very hard to scope and could be expanded enormously but to very little purpose. I don’t object to draftifying if anyone wants to work on it but the creator has been blocked for vandalism and if there is a viable topic here, a clean start might make more sense. Mccapra (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I would be willing to work on this because it is an important topic. Coming up with a definition of sacred should be doable going off the three Abrahamic religions. There is potential for a strong topic here if the time is put in. But unless it's unfixable I err on the side of keeping information on this site. AadamentAardvark (talk)

Without a title/scope change, care would need to be taken to ensure it only contains locations in Israel proper i.e. within the green line. It currently includes some locations across the green line and it would be a straightforward NPOV violation for Wikipedia to describe those as 'in Israel' in wikivoice. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are far more than sufficient sources to sustain this under NLIST. A huge kudos for the suggested work above. Can be done in the article, also without draftity. gidonb (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All of them? Not that I know of. Do you have source a for that? From what I could find, there are 142 Jewish sacred places in Israel and the West Bank in the Israeli government list. I counted 4 regular synagogues among these. The Western Wall area operates similarly in practice. That's very few among 15,000 or so synagogues. The list is for the most part gravesides and graveyards. Also some caves, a water tunnel. There is some variety yet also a very clear majority of sites. gidonb (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 14:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Christ TV

edit


Christ TV (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 GNG. The entire programming section is cited to a primary source, and the only source of SIGCOV I could find is the source from The Herald, which seems like WP:ROUTINE news coverage to me (assuming it is SIGCOV, which is iffy). Gommeh (talk! sign!) 19:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 01:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Manal Matha Shrine

edit


Manal Matha Shrine (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 notable; will attach a WP:BEFORE list in a moment. The narrative about being buried in sand and then rediscovered lacks historical basis, as does any involvement with Thomas the Apostle. Could be a redir to Diocese of Tuticorin. Apocheir (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gbooks for "Manal Matha Shrine": Five results, one is self-published, three mention it only in passing, and one is a false positive.
  • Google search for "Athisaya Manal Matha Shrine": Directory listings, social media, pages from the church itself, Wikipedia mirrors.
  • Gnews: Four hits, all passing mention or false positive.
  • Gscholar: One repeat from Gbooks, one document about tourism in Tuticorin District.
  • Wikipedia Library: Four hits, all false positives
It's possible that there are sources in Tamil or other languages that didn't turn up here, but Tamil Wikipedia doesn't have a page for the shrine either. Apocheir (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 01:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Dunham

edit
AfDs for this article:
Gary Dunham (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)

Tagged as of dubious notability & unreferenced since March 2023. Lack of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — COI disclosure: I have a family connection to Gary Dunham, and I am not being paid to edit Wikipedia. I am commenting here to point editors to sources and a proposed rewrite rather than directly editing the article.

I have posted a COI edit request on the article Talk page and prepared a sourced rewrite here: User:Dunham82/Gary Dunham rewrite. The current article is poorly sourced, but the subject appears to meet notability guidelines based on newly located sources. These include a bylined 1981 feature profile in ‘‘Contemporary Christian Music’’, a 1980 profile in ‘‘Christian Life’’, independent newspaper coverage in the ‘‘St. Joseph News-Press’’, ‘‘The Tampa Tribune’’, ‘‘Great Falls Tribune’’, and ‘‘Fredericksburg Standard’’, and chart documentation in ‘‘Hot Hits: Christian Hit Radio’’. These sources support Dunham’s early professional music career, touring with the final incarnation of Blues Image, NewPax recordings, charting CCM songs including “Happy Family” and “The Pearl”, and work with Don Francisco as a songwriter, keyboardist, and background vocalist. I understand editors will evaluate the sources independently, but I believe the sourced draft addresses the concern that there is not enough reliable coverage to support the article. Dunham82 (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the first nomination from May 2023 ended in soft deletion, which effectively converted it into a de facto PROD that could be, and was recently, refunded, as there was no objection–or any other input at all–at the time. We are now going to need actual participation for deletion to stick or even happen. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 14:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Meghalaya

edit


Hinduism in Meghalaya (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)

Redirect or just Merge the demographic tables to Religion in Meghalaya and delete the rest. The census figures are a content fork, and the surrounding article is a POV fork resting on two policy failures. First, the "History" and "Tradition" sections recast the indigenous Khasi-Pnar faith Ka Niamtre and its festivals as "tribalised" Hinduism with "links to larger Vedic Civilization," stating a contested Sanskritisation reading as fact against WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL; this is synthesis, and it is internally self-refuting, since one of its own citations has a Khasi leader explicitly saying they are not Hindus even where practices resemble each other. The "Percentage in Groups" block then assigns precise religious splits to whole ethnic communities ("60% Hindu and 40% Muslim") with no source, which is bare original research, and the article carries multiple unverifiable and [citation needed] claims alongside mutually contradictory population tables (the 1971 share is given as both 17.19% and 18.49%). Second, the "Persecution" section is a coatrack of non-neutral claims that Hindus are "targeted, attacked and murdered by Christian tribals," sourced to partisan and self-published outlets (democracynewslive.com, dailyo.in, the "Cutting the Chai" blog) that fail WP:RS and are wholly inadequate for contentious allegations against a living community. The topic may be notable, but the verifiable content is a census table; the interpretive and "persecution" material is an essay and should not survive the merge or redirect. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, Hinduism, India, and Meghalaya. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I went through the article and the nominator's rationale. And what I'll say that, it's definitely not beyond redemption and there's no need to WP:TNT it. Whatever OR/SYNTH issues seem to be there, they can be comfortably addressed through editing. And the WP:V issues can be tagged or removed, at an editor's prudence. After all, AfD ain't clean-up. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 02:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The "AfD ain't cleanup" principle applies to ordinary quality issues, but Wikipedia:BLPGROUP and Wikipedia:NPOV create a higher bar when content makes unverified, contentious allegations against living communities. The "persecution" section sources accusations of targeted violence to blogs and partisan outlets that fail WP:RS, and that cannot be fixed by tagging alone; keeping it in any form risks ongoing harm. The verifiable content is purely demographic, so a merge to Religion in Meghalaya preserves what is salvageable without hosting the harmful material. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The persecution section (WP:BLPGROUP) and tradition sections are poorly sourced, though I think the history section could be rewritten and salvaged. Junosangleave a message 18:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 15:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The article isn't beyond improvement. There are verifiable claims worth keeping. See [[WP:RSP]]. Times of India, Economic and Political Weekly, The Indian Express, and The Hindu are considered reliable. The content on the Shakta pitha and shivalingas is appropriate as well as reports on conflict (if rewritten neutrally). Elaborating on all this content on the Religion in Meghalaya page would then give too much weight compared to other religions when in fact Hinduism is a minority religion in the state. Swirlymarigold (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please also provide the sources to back up your argument, thanks Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to usable sources in a previous version of the article and here are a few more. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6754889.cms; https://www.epw.in/journal/2016/9/web-exclusives/khasis-hindus.html; https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/in-meghalaya-christians-care-for-shivalingams/article29939614.ece; https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/shillong/pilgrims-throng-mawjymbuin-cave-in-meghalaya/articleshow/70640918.cms;https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/meghalaya-extremists-ask-non-tribal-group-to-leave/article61968102.ece; https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/citizenship-amendment-act-caa-meghalaya-violence-simply-put-6301430/; https://www.academia.edu/download/56129222/People__Societies___Cultures.pdf; https://dspace.nehu.ac.in/bitstreams/b88d8b24-10f0-4bbb-b84d-c100a9a17b9c/download; https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HmnTDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT10&dq=hindu+AND+meghalaya&ots=kIAWoixa1m&sig=yE5TKlbMixjwUr4GDAaocQnKz2U; https://dspace.nehu.ac.in/bitstreams/021d320d-6bb7-4d58-8c42-f834bbcc053b/download Swirlymarigold (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Swirlymarigold Sorry, but none of them really address the core subject...will need better sources. Per WP:MERGEPROP, merge would be more appropriate than a keep, when an article's verifiable content can be covered adequately in a broader article without creating undue weight. Firstly, the EPW/Raiot piece you provided itself contradicts the article's Sanskritisation framing, confirming the WP:NPOV problem rather than resolving it. The TOI and Hindu pieces cover individual sites (Mawjymbuin Cave, Nartiang temples) suitable for Religion in Meghalaya subsections, not comprehensive treatment of the broader topic. The Indian Express and conflict sources address ethnic tensions, not religious practice per WP:COATRACK. NEHU theses fail WP:SECONDARY and I looked through the thesis and there is no mention of the practice of hinduism. Also academia.edu is a portal where users can self upload/self-publish any paper they want.. it is not reliable. None of the sources you provided actually treat "Hinduism in Meghalaya" or the practice of the faith in the state as a standalone subject. Only thing of value in all of this are Census data and temple locations which integrates cleanly into Religion in Meghalaya per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. So merging with Religion in Meghalaya makes way more sense
Also Fyi, I do not know why you included the TOI and Indian express links...
The TOI is about ethnic tensions, and the first link appears to be an advertorial, and not a journalistic entry... as can be seen with how its written with no byline and no proper headline. The hindu article is establishes notability of Mawjymbuin Cave, not the broader topic... and its about a dispute. See WP:NOTINHERITED. The remaining hindu and indian express are not about religion either but about ethnic conflict and CAA protests. Also the last book source is about Sanskritization and conflicts therein and offers no indepth coverage Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
and the previous version of the article was a coatrack of unverified claims, original research, hoax, and broadly a PoV push. None of those sources established for a fact what was being claimed... and most weren't even about the practice of the religion in the state. Also was violating wikipedia guidelines on a living community as it was extremely inflammatory Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that the question before us isn't whether the article is good enough to be kept, or even whether it could be improved to meet our standards. A merge discussion focuses on the question of whether readers would be better served to see the content in the broader context of the proposed target. Please address this key question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Doman

edit
AfDs for this article:
Regina Doman (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)

Little significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Refs in the article are all dead links. Blackballnz (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find much WP:RS coverage of the subject that was independent. Best I could find was an interview and coverage on "Catholic Mom.com". Fails WP:GNG Yojo98 (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reviews of one book would suffice or we wouldn't have an article on Margaret Mitchell for example, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But we don’t have multiple reviews of one book for Doman, and Margaret Mitchell qualifies under ANYBIO and GNG anyway. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jocelyn's dance talk 08:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

edit


Categories for discussion

edit

Miscellaneous

edit

References

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard&oldid=1357836858"