Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity

Shortcuts

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:

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.
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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Christianity

Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses

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 per snowball clause . Closing this rather than there be another keep vote by a lot of editors. Article is very well-sourced. Concerns about neutrality can be fixed through editing. (non-admin closure) Kaito-san (talk/contribs) 23:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)‎[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a POV fork. TheLatinNerd (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Rather poor nomination reason as most religions have secondary criticism pages properly sourced, as this one does. I doubt this will be open very long unless the nom quickly elaborates further. Nathannah • 📮 22:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for Nathannah's reason, or merge into the Jehovah's Witnesses article. »Gommeh 23:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as this is the case for most religions and it is consistent with more specific Wikipedia policies (namely WP:NPOV)

Mast303 (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD was mentioned on the Wikimedia Community Discord server. - Sebbog13 (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2025 (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.

All India Christian Council

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has been tagged non-notable since 2010. When I did my searching WP:BEFORE I found the All-India Christian Confederation and the All India True Christian Council which I assume are different things? The website that this page links to is dead. Against deletion I found this article and this article but I don't think they are in depth and the former might not be independent either.

As always with pages from places that speak languages I don't I will happily change my mind if presented with non-English sources Moritoriko (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and India. Moritoriko (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T. Frederick Candlyn

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Organist and choirmaster. No significant coverage in secondary sources and I don't see how his role at St Thomas Episcopal makes him automatically notable.

Worth mentioning that even within the limited category of organists who took an external music degree at Durham University, Candlyn does not compare that well to others e.g. I don't think he was ever a Fellow of the Royal College of Organists, a full professor of music, or the recipient of a government award (like Order of the British Empire, or an American equivalent) Leonstojka (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saint_Thomas_Church_(Manhattan)#Organists. Not notable enough for a stand alone article, but certainly for a section in another article. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the existing sources in the article while offline seem dedicated newspaper articles and entries in reliable books. He seems notable as a composer: "Candlyn composed two hundred works, primarily anthems, cantatas, service settings and organ solos. Three of his anthems ("Christ, whose glory fills the skies," "Thee We Adore," and "King of Glory, King of Peace") remain part of the standard repertoire of Episcopal church choirs in North America." from the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NY Times coverage throughout his career. Significant prize as composer. Jahaza (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The NY Times obituary and the articles in The Diapason are easily enough to satisfy GNG. Seems to be notable as a composer as well. MCE89 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repast (funeral)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established with significant sources: 1 is just a dictionary definition, 2 does not appear to use the term [1], 3 is not a reliable source, 4 only uses it once in passing, 5 only uses it once in passing, 6 appears to be a ref-bomb. Reywas92^Talk 04:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there may be cultural differences in the use of this term, but in the UK it does not mean a meal specifically at a funeral, it just means a meal, any meal at all. Mccapra (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's what source 1 says, which makes it weirder. All the article's content is generic self-explanatory fluff with no actually novel facts. Reywas92^Talk 23:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this needs work, including distinguishing between uses and connotations, but it's a formerly common term. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's just a "term", that sounds like this is more of a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia article. Funeral customs, including the food served, are within the scope of an encyclopedia, but it's not clear that the term "repast" specifically refers to any such custom. Omphalographer (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject of academic work[2][3][4][5][6]. Also[7]. Jahaza (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xulon Press

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure if this self-publishing company meets NCORP. It meets GNG but the NCORP bar is high. Like all publishing companies it's hard to find the sigcov in the sea of book mentions, but all I found was this [8] [9], [10] [11] which I am not sure if it is enough for the higher NCORP bar. Could be merged into its parent company Salem Media Group PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Companies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Florida, and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not a deletion. Could be merged into Salem Media Group. Jahaza (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geneviève Jeanningros

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. She briefly went viral during Pope Francis's funeral, but other than that... she's just a nun. Luxic (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Religion, Christianity, Europe, and France. Luxic (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Previous independent in depth coverage here[12], here[13] and here[14]. Pope Francis mentioned her in print[15][16] and she's been mentioned in books about Francis[17][18]. Additional coverage here[19]. Jahaza (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it's worth noting that all those sources only mention her in relation to Pope Francis (or she's mentioned by Francis himself). I still fail to see what would make her notable in her own right, regardless of her connection/friendship with the late pope. Luxic (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Oladele

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Flagged and failing WP:GNG since October 2024, with no edits to improve it in the intervening period. Fails WP:BIO. Looks like WP:BLP1E based on the grift for which he was jailed in 2020. Otherwise WP:ROTM grifter and pastor 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Nigeria. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG King ChristLike (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Brestin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT prohibits unilateral return top Draft. WP:ROTM author. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Christianity, and United States of America. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois, Missouri, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet WP:RS standards and at least half are just profiles on non-independent sites. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a couple independent sources covering Brestin's work, namely, a 2010 review of her book in the journal Death Studies; a 2019 Publishers Weekly book review; and a bit of analysis of her 2002 book by Kathaleen Amende in Desire and the Divine: Feminine Identity in White Southern Women's Writing (Louisiana State University Press). There's also an interview with Today's Christian Woman magazine she did alongside a co-author, though I'm not sure how much that factors into WP:NAUTHOR. These sources have been added to the article. Best, Bridget (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Round Rock Christian Academy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I nominated this article for PROD a week ago, but didn't realize that it was already nominated for PROD and contested in the past therefore being ineligible for another PROD nomination (whew, i'll be more careful next time). I don't think that the school is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. As far as I can see, there does not seem to be a suitable article to redirect to, so AfD is the only course of action available. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, United States of America, and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect and merge into Round_Rock,_Texas#Education whatever can be salvaged on history (probably not more than half a paragraph) that is not ROTM "school teaches stuff". --hroest 20:33, 15 May 2025 (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 redirect‎ to Pope Adrian VI#Papacy. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinals created by Adrian VI

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. It’s a one-item list. The page creator removed the PROD on the grounds that there are articles for all creations of cardinals and that they contain more information, but a one-item list isn’t needed, and the information can be put on the page about the cardinal himself. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator: as the only pages that link to this page are List of creations of cardinals and Pope Adrian VI, I think anyone following the link is looking for information on Willem van Enckevoirt, the cardinal in question, so a redirect there would be better. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if there are articles for all creations of cardinals, then perhaps keep as a redirect for navigation and redirect to Pope Adrian VI. Jahaza (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pope Adrian VI#Papacy. Duplicative and unnecessary, one item is not a list even if other items in the set have lists. Reywas92^Talk 20:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pope Adrian VI#Papacy as an ATD. A one person list is not necessary. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is certainly the correct outcome here. Pope Adrian VI#Papacy looks like an adequate target. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2025 (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.

Loyola Jesuit College

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to lack WP:SIGCOV and has had WP:PROMO edits. In WP:BEFORE did not find reliable sources such that WP:GNG fails here. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very week keep The promo in the past is true but I think the school barely makes the cut. Google used to be bad in covering African news sources in their indexing process but I don't know if that is still the case. If so, there should be untapped sources available on paper but not on the internet. The Banner talk 11:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can find in my Wikipedia:BEFORE. If you find enough for coverage, I could withdraw my nomination, but I did not find much on this "college". Iljhgtn (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks the notability required by the general notability rules. No sign of notability and no good media sources could be found.--Amlikdi (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Check the References list now. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think this meets the WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV, we would need more sources to bolster inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Check the article now please. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep this case is different from all the other WP:ROTM local high schools, according to local sources this is one of the top (or the top) schools in the country. See this report in Business Day and this source linked in the article [20]. There is some coverage in this book spanning almost a full page 282. Given the amount of coverage available online and its clear standing locally, as well as all the coverage about the plane crash, this should pass WP:NSCHOOL. --hroest 20:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"report in Business Day"? That is a weak listicle at best. Not notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I think it is better that editors mention that they did no BEFORE on an article than saying suh when nothing was done. I was just looking at these mountain of sources: on Google Scholar, Google books, Archived newspapers, and news websites. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not sources ABOUT the college, but are mere passing mentions in some academic citations. Nothing in your so called "mountain of source" [sic] makes this notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn, please show me the sources that are not reliable or independent. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has been greatly improved since its nomination, to pass WP:ORGCRIT and meet WP:GNG. King ChristLike (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Binkley

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Binkley hasn't recieved notable coverage outside of his campaign, as far as I can tell. Even the campaign coverage was mostly routine and the votes he recieved make clear that his campaign wasn't notable Esolo5002 (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: I can't grasp how this discussion was started despite the overwhelming evidence raised at the last AfD that indicates notability extending over multiple aspects of this individual. Even if you want to discount that the prolonged and significant coverage of Binkley's campaign does not extend notability to him as an individual, you have to accept that it does indicate notability of his campaign. Beyond this, multiple discussions established that there were substantial indications of notability beyond campaign coverage. Binkley's work as a pastor, M&A consultant, and restaurant franchise owner have all received coverage independent from his campaign. I would encourage Esolo5002 to withdraw this nomination expeditiously. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree very strongly with this reading of the last AFD, especially because two different discussions ended in deletions relatively recently. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those two deletion discussions closed with different outcomes because 1.) less coverage had actually occurred up to that point and 2.) there was a lack of awareness regarding the other sources of this subject's notability. The latter discussion clearly indicates that what had previously been a consensus towards deletion had overwhelming shifted to a consensus to keep. For many subjects, this is the natural progression of things. Your rationale for deletion is objectively false, looking solely at the sources in the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a corollary to all this, see Talk:Ryan Binkley#Requested move 25 February 2024, which directly addresses the question of notability beyond the campaign. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources currently in the article

1-Probably is good enough

2-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

3-Routine campaign announcement

4-Not a news article

5-Routine campaign announcement

6-Routine campaign announcement

7-More in-depth campaign coverage

8-Press release

9-More in-depth campaign coverage

10-Couldn't access but doesn't appear to be about Binkley enough to help his notability

11-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

12-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

13-Interview

14-Routine campaign announcement

15-Routine campaign announcement

16-More in-depth campaign coverage

17-Press release

18-Routine campaign coverage

19-Routine campaign coverage

20-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

21-Routine campaign coverage

22-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

23-Tweet

24-Routine campaign coverage

25-Doesn't even mention him

26-Routine campaign coverage

27-In-depth campaign coverage

28-Not a news article

29-Doesn't even mention him

30-Live blog

31-In-depth campaign coverage

32-In-depth campaign coverage

33-Live blog (and even if it wasn't, not enough for notability)

34-Not a news article

35-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot)

36-Literally has nothing to do with Binkley (I will remove this source after I'm done with this reply)

37-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot)

38-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot)

39-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot, also Newsweek is not reliable)

40-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

41-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

42-In-depth campaign coverage

43-Not a news article

44-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

45-Routine campaign coverage

46-Couldn't access, probably routine campaign coverage

47-Does not appear to be a reliable source, looks like a tabloid

48-Press release

One source is good enough for notability. Even in the in-depth campaign sources go on about nobody has ever heard of this guy. Lots of people run for President, some people have enough to get on the ballot, that doesn't mean they are notable. The Nevada coverage is so funny in hindsight because he was the only other person on the ballot, and got less than 1% of the vote. There is just not enough here for him to be notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding is that six articles providing in-depth coverage of his campaign, another source you admit is adequate to source him as a subject, and still other sources describing him in other contexts is insufficient to retain an article? I think that you provide the real rationale for your edit in the comment above: that he got less than 1% of the vote. That being the case does nothing to determine notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of his campaign is not good enough for his own notability. It's good enough for his campaign's notabiity, not his own. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you thought that was the case, why aren't you proposing a move to Ryan Binkley presidential campaign? Jahaza (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are more sources available now then the last time this article was kept, and notability is not temporary. Jahaza (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No explanation has been offered for why the previous discussion result of "keep" was invalid. Notability once gained is not lost. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~or Redirect to a campaign oriented page such as a correctly spelled version of Ryan Binkley 2024 presidental campagin.~~ This subject is now in its fourth AfD. Thus far, two deletes and a keep. The first two times we got it right. There are three claims here: candidate, pastor, and businessman. There is a lot of "Who is Ryan?" coverage which is campaign coverage caters to nerds. It literally goes "hey, look at this after thought!" It's like the coverage is a concession he is not notable. I am unconvinced that such coverage will be historically significant. The citations are also very announcement heavy which seems redundant. There are a number of efforts to mask a lack of notability. Identifying how much he spent on radio ads, the totals of other candidates, mentioning he spoke at a dinner literally all candidates get to speak at, and elaborate descriptions of his election results are hallmarks of efforts to mask a lack of notability. In many of the citations, Binkley is not the main subject. While one need not be the main subject, I feel he is too tertiary to add up a bunch of mentions (as another user points out are routine) and pretend it is the same as a smaller number of in-depth, sustained coverage sources (the HITC listicle seems particularly egregious). There is no lasting coverage. There is no in-depth coverage of the candidacy or the subject. His candidacy does not confer notability.

This leaves us with religious leader and businessman. I do not think he meets the religious leader criteria. The Church has 650 parishioners. While this is more people than I could ever hope to get to join me in anything, a Texas pastor who set out to church plant and several years later has 650 parishioners is not on its own notable. Finally, I don't think his business career meets notability. The business sources in the article are only once independent of the subject and the mention of him as part of a small franchisee team. Notability gained is not lost as someone said, BUT notability can be wrongly conferred by an AfD during election season as happens pretty regularly (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Raby v.s. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Raby (2nd nomination)). Deletions were correct in the first and second nomination. It was on the third nomination, done during peak election season when WP:NOTNEWS gets thrown out the window, that an erroneous consensus was reached.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote is confusing. A !vote for deletion necessarily means the deletion of the content. A redirect means deleting the content (and possibly merging some content) to an existing article. What appears to be suggested is a page move, which is fundamentally different as the content is retained (albeit perhaps with an alteration to the scope). Discounting fulfillment of the GNG (which this article and subject absolutely does) because it's about a guy who failed in an election is bad precedent. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware they are different. I mention I would be OK with a redirect as an alternative. I do not believe the subject should have a standalone page because of a failure to have the kind of independent, in-depth, sustained coverage expected under GNG as I say in my nomination and as Esolo5002 lays out in depth. There is no greater proof of this than the very little (if any) coverage of him since the 2024 Republican primary election. Would you prefer I make this exclusively a !deletevote?--Mpen320 (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed solution was a redirect to an article that doesn't exist. Further, a straight !vote for deletion makes no sense by GNG: Esolo5002's analysis indicates that we have a RS source from 2020 that provides SIGCOV of the subject plus multiple RSs providing SIGCOV during the election. That alone meets GNG. !voting delete would seem to be a peculiar reaction. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised my !vote and I am just going to leave an essay about how an article about you or someone you like is not always a good thing here. I have no new policy arguments to make and just reiterating at each other is not the best use of either of our time.--Mpen320 (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mpen320: I think Binkley is a bit of a loon, so your unsubtle aspersion should be retracted. If anything, please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can either claim my vote is nonsensical or you can be mad when I simplify it. This was not done out of spite, it was to ensure my vote is accurately weighted by the closer. I can see how my inclusion of the essay was unfair. I clearly made some assumptions based on past AfDs with candidate advocates fighting for articles. I should not have let that cloud my judgment as to your !vote.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mpen320: Your explanation is much appreciated. I agree that we should not run in circles here, and accept that you are convinced to !vote delete based on policy, even if I disagree. Let me know if you need help accessing at anything related to this subject if you participate anywhere else in this AfD. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete: Provide a single noteworthy news source talking about this guy after the election, or before the election. He was a flash in the pan candidate and people with Wikipedia articles should have enough coverage of the person beyond just one event, if not, mention them in the page for the event.

Ryan Binkley's inclusion in Wikipedia should be limited to a redirect to 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries#Candidates.

Scuba 21:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you forgot, but you were very clearly informed that there was indeed an adequate source prior to the election, see this discussion. If you believe that coverage persisting past an arbitrary point is a necessary prerequisite, this is not premised in the WP:GNG. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not changing my vote from last time as I'm not sure what has changed. SportingFlyer T·C 07:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not clear even from the sources in the article. He was minor candidiate that did not make it. It seems the artcle was created for his candidacy purposes. I don't see notable coverage after the Primaries in 2024. Not enough for a stand alone article. Cannot think of a useful redirect. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To any closer, please consider moving this to a draft briefly, as I would like to access the history for about 48 hours. I want to consider this for a possibly discussion on the relevant policy talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment here, but it comes down to the following: I worry the application of NPOL might be superseding the standards of WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. This article has SIGCOV of the subject from national- or international-level reliable sources from the following months:
  - May 2020 (pre-election): 1
  - April 2023: 1, 2
  - July 2023: 1
  - January 2024: 1, 2, 3, 4
  - February 2024: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
- Maybe US presidential elections are a special case where the remarkable amount of news coverage outweighs the conventional BASIC and GNG standards. Consider responding at the above-linked discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I started to write this at WT:Notability (people) where Pbritti has opened a separate discussion, but my comment became more about this specific AfD so I'm leaving it here. Breaking news like "Binkley announces he is running for president" is primary sourcing and therefore doesn't count toward notability under GNG or BASIC. Stringing together separate breaking news sources to create an article is bad practice and produces low-quality content. General coverage like a biographical piece on Binkley's life is secondary and does count toward notability. Most sourcing about him looks to be the former, and even the ones that lean toward the latter seem to be prompted and heavily influenced by ongoing events rather than analysis that indicates he has more generally been taken note of as a significant figure. So my question is whether any general biographical sources have been written about him. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thebiguglyalien: Thanks for replying here. There's a source from 2020 that's been discussed before, unrelated to the election. Please feel welcome to comment further in the other discussion, too; I'd like to hear more about what you said regarding BASIC in the discussion above the one I started. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day (Forrest Frank song)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Child of God (album). Despite charting, the song is not covered in reliable sources, thus failing WP:NSONG. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 04:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a passing mention in a Billboard article [21] but that's about it for WP:RS. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 17:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I increased the amount of secondary sources in the article, if that's what you're requesting.
  01:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC) Javajourney (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Thanks for adding more. However, I'm not sure if most of the sources are WP:RS. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 15:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Above Destinyokhiria (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since this song won a Dove Award (which would help it meet WP:NSONG criteria), I withdraw this nomination. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 17:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep song has won an award and was nominated for another two. Some sources in the article don't seem reliable. I removed a striking one. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nomination can not be withdrawn once a "delete" !vote has been cast.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

CFSO-TV (via WP:PROD on 14 May 2025)

Categories for discussion

Christian religious leaders: further follow-up required, see Category talk:Religious leaders#Clergy categories

Miscellaneous