Back ویکیپیڈیا:ویکی منصوبہ مسیحیت/تختہ اطلاعات Urdu

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

Recent changes of Christianity-related talkpages
List of abbreviations (help):
D
Edit made at Wikidata
r
Edit flagged by ORES
N
New page
m
Minor edit
b
Bot edit
(±123)
Page byte size change

18 November 2024

15 November 2024


Alerts for Christianity-related articles

Today's featured article requests

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(2 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Good article nominees

Good topic candidates

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(5 more...)

Articles to be split

Articles for creation


Christianity Deletion list


Christianity

[edit]

Dachuna

[edit]
Dachuna (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. a female Cornish Dachuna is only known from one singular mention by Hugh Candidus in a list of saints' resting places. i checked the Blair source as i have irl access to it, and the heading is "Summary list of late, non-English, or dubious saints who appear in the resting-place lists". according to Nicholas Orme's Saints of Cornwall,

The reference is presumably to Bodmin Priory, but no evidence survives from there about these saints, apart from Petroc. ... Dachuna is equally elusive in Cornwall, and a similar name in Ireland is male not female. ... In short, there is no certain Cornish context for these names; perhaps Hugh Candidus or his source conflated two places and ascribed saints to Bodmin who rightly belonged elsewhere.

there is no evidence that a female Cornish Dachuna ever existed. she is only known from one very dubious passing mention in a medieval source. fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Some of nominator's reasoning/historical commentary is a bit misguided, a lot of prominent subjects rely on a single source, Beowulf for instance is arguably one of those. Whether the saint itself ever existed as a person, who knows, but the cult did; like arguing Zeus didn't exist so the god's article should be deleted. Even the nomination shows that the subject is of scholarly interest. The saint's cult and commemoration are recorded in one of the major sources of information we have for early English saints. The article is a stub and needs more work, but that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable either. Ironically if the nominator had expended the same energy expanding the article as trying to get it deleted it might not be a stub, some of the info used above could be in the article in expounded form. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's not what i'm saying, and is entirely beside the point. there is nothing to add to this article, and there is no evidence beyond Hugh Candidus' brief mention that she existed and was buried at Bodmin, let alone that she had a cult or commemoration - scholarly sources, including the one you cited in the article, agree on that. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's not what i'm saying I don't know specifically what 'that' means here, but everything I've said addresses the points you've raised. there is nothing to add to this article How do you know what can be added to the article? Your reasoning is misguided, just because there is only one source doesn't mean there is nothing more to be said. It's also clearly wrong as a statement, you could have added the quote above to the article, for instance, instead of using it here. Again, misspent effort. An established, culted medieval saint is intrinsically notable and there will be more scholarship, either material existing but unused or in the future. I find the logic and motivation here alarming, you would clear out so many important articles on Wikipedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is not an "established, culted medieval saint". that is what the very sparse sourcing says - that this was probably a mistake on Hugh's part. and i know that there is nothing to add because i've looked for good sourcing on this saint, and have come up very short. Dachuna does not even have her own entry in the very, very thorough and authoritative Orme book, nor does she have any dedications, known feast days, or folklore. the only thing we know about this supposed saint is where she was supposedly buried, from one singular passing mention. please do not speculate about my motivations, either. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful if people here who aren't historians stop commenting on the historicity of the saint, you don't know what you are talking about. Because a commentator speculates that it might be a mistake by Hugh, that's not the last word, we do not have satisfactory let alone exhaustive source coverage of religion in 12th century Cornwall. Also if you did have any kind of expertise on Insular saints cults you'd know that they frequently spawn dopplegangers, gender changes, etc, etc, doesn't mean they are not notable. St Kentigern of Glasgow was likely a gender change, St Ninian of Whithorn is likely a doppleganger/invention (based on recent scholarship). Also, you've made your motivation clear, you are posting here because you want this deleted, right, what's there for me to 'speculate' about? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hugh Candidus and add mention of these dubious saints there as an AtD. (edit conflict) I concur with Sawyer's assessment here that a full article on an almost certainly non-existent saint should not warrant an article when coverage has been so sparse and exclusively focused on the likely falsity of the original claim. However, saint articles have a tendency to reappear due to the general assumption of notability many editors believe they have. A redirect that indicates the spurious origin may stave off any misguided efforts to revive the page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful if people here who aren't historians stop commenting on the historicity of the saint, neither of you know what you are talking about. I don't mean to sound patronising, but the source problems here and the historical issues surrounding the evolution of saints cults are very complex. Also, why would you redirect it to Hugh Candidus? Surely if you were going to delete it you'd just redirect it to List of Cornish saints or List of Anglo-Saxon saints?Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should say that, as I am a historian. You have managed to be patronizing and seem to be taking this AfD far too personally. Your redirect suggestions are inappropriate targets due to the unlikely historicity and singular reference of this purported saint. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not taking it personally at all. Why are the redirect suggestions 'inappropriate'? Listen, if you want to call yourself a historian because you did a history degree I'm not going to argue, but my points stands, these issues are specialised and complex, I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings but this is a public encyclopedia used by millions of people and the lack of relevant competence is important....but unfortunately if you don't recognise it yourself pointing it out any further is likely to be a waste of time on my part. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - especially if the information from Orme's Saints of Cornwall is added (which it should be). Yes, it's a sparse article, but that's not exactly unusual in medieval subjects. It is a bit of a borderline case, but yes, there does appear enough for me to consider this worth an article. I do not consider Hugh Candidus a good redirect target - that would imply that Hugh had some connection to this purported saint, where he is just the source. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think it might be worth noting that you were canvassed (diff) for participation in this AfD? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note my reply at Deacon's talk page - here addressing my knowing about this AfD before Deacon posted on my talk page. (I've long had Deacon's TP watchlisted - you might note the yearly Saturnalia posts that date back many years for him (and most everyone else where I have their userpages watchlisted) Ealdgyth (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pbritti, you are approaching this the wrong way, we are people with long-established interests in these articles. Ealdgyth isn't going to be 'canvassed' by anyone, let alone me. When I last checked she was one of the main contributors to articles on English Christianity. 10os articles in which she has an interest could be negatively affected by this selective attempt to impose deletionist maximalism on a relevant article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ealdgyth: Your response is a bit ridiculous when you only !voted here after being canvassed, failed to acknowledge that, and have not !voted in an AfD in over a year (and only five in the last five years). @Deacon of Pndapetzim: you explicitly sought the aid of a friendly editor, which is canvassing. I'll take this up with WP:AN next. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please WP:AGF. I will mention the discussion to anyone I think might be interested, I had no idea if Ealdgyth would agree with me or not, I didn't want this discussion to have no input from knowledgable people & just be me and the two of you. If I'd wanted to perform some wicked evil conspiracy on you I could have emailed her or lots of other people & you wouldn't have had a clue, seriously get a grip . Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the interest of fairness, i have added what little is available from Orme's book. i do not have access to the Jankulak book so i have no idea if there's more information in there. i stand by my nomination for deletion, however; i do not believe this is enough for a standalone article. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete What's in the article right now really looks like, at best, passing mention in a single book. I would suggest that, unless significant improvement can be made to citation quality, there's not enough here to support a separate article. It's never going to be more than a stub. Suggest merging any relevant information into Saint Petroc. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Petroc seems like a reasonable merge/redirect target to me. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A single passing mention is not enough to establish notability, despite some votes based on hypotheticals provided above. You don't need to be a historian, despite what one user claims, to realize that a lack of sources is worth considering. I do not have any objection to a redirect given the provided context. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Benedict School of Novaliches

[edit]
Saint Benedict School of Novaliches (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)

No sources since 2010. Only references online are primary or social media about the school. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would a redirect to Caloocan#Education be appropriate you reckon? Procyon117 (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Cord Records

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Red Cord Records (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 also nominating
Righteous Vendetta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), because it also appears to be a re-creation by the same UPE user of an AfD deleted non-notable article in very similar category and seems appropriate after reading previous AfD for both articles.

Falls short of WP:NCORP. Previously deleted with unanimous delete consensus in 2012. I'm not seeing happenings resulting in coverages in the 12 years since then that puts this company above the NCORP threshold. After it was deleted, it was re-created by a long-term undisclosed paid editor with promotional PR activity involvment. The additional sources with newer dates than the previous AfD are basically "did this..." "released this..." WP:ROUTINE events. Graywalls (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of saints

[edit]
List of saints (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)

List has no clear criteria for inclusion. And if we were to include every saint from the four Churches mentioned in the table, then it would be far too long. I've created a new article (Lists of saints) which should serve as a directory for lists of saints, so I believe List of Saints should become a redirect to that. ―Howard • 🌽33 15:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this does get deleted, can we not delete the history and just put the new one over it/histmerge? I would rather not delete a 23 year article history if it can be avoided. Or redirect is fine too just keep the history. No opinion on the proposal itself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why does the history matter? ―Howard • 🌽33 15:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With pages this old and with this many sub pages, there's an extremely high likelihood this has been content split to some of the other saint lists at some point, so it would need to be kept historically for attribution reasons. Also historically interesting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't answer if it should be either. ―Howard • 🌽33 16:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of saints: This article should not exist in its current form, as it is way too painful to navigate. However, redirects are cheap, and I see no downside to preserving the page history. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Golovanov

[edit]
Sergey Golovanov (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)

Lack of notability. I looked for sources in both Russian and English and was unable to find anything about this person specifically, and the page has been tagged as lacking sources for two years. Jaguarnik (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wylie-Kellermann

[edit]
Bill Wylie-Kellermann (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)

No indication of notability. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]

Categories for discussion

[edit]

Miscellaneous

[edit]

Developed by StudentB