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

Bishop Moore Vidyapith, Mavelikkara

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

A merge to Kallumala#Education was contested, but as a new page reviewer I could not find any WP:SIGCOV of this school to warrant a pass WP:GNG, just WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA stories ([1]) that read as promo. The sources in the article are solely the school's own website. Encyclopedic content has already been merged, so I am seeking consensus to restore a redirect to Kallumala#Education. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Kerala. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A simiar search reveals no WP:SGCOV in the literature or news outlets. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL without any reliable independent coverage. --hroest 14:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (I boldly performed the limited merge): independent sigcov not found. Redirection to location is a standard WP:ATD for schools where article is not retained (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful as Ever

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

Redirect to Forrest Frank discography. Despite charting, the song is not covered in reliable sources, thus failing WP:NSONG. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 00:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:52, 8 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 ☎ ✎ 04:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. No WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Heschmeyer

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

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The only example of third-party coverage is this 2020 interview in a Catholic magazine. JTtheOG (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Kansas. JTtheOG (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are also a handful of, often brief, book reviews, but it doesn't look hopeful[2][3][4] Jahaza (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Mizell

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

Non-notable WP:ROTM American pastor/businessman. Promotional page (WP:PEACOCK) that appears like an advertorial CV (WP:NOT). Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would have PROD'ed this, utterly non-notable person. Reads like a CV/resume. I'm not sure this is appropriate for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BASIC. This reads like a press release. Six of the seven sources appear to be his own publications. The seventh is from his church, so he likely wrote that also. — Maile (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 01:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and reads like a promotional resume. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like a CV/Resume, promotional article and totally non-notable person. Sources are only self-published. Fails WP:NBASIC, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO. If this wasn't at AfD it may well qualify for G11 speedy deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Easter in the Balkans

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

Reads a lot like AI slop with many weasel words and is very similar to the Romanian article that is also being AfD'ed. It also incorporates AI images. Laura240406 (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Topic seems obviously notable. Why can’t it be fixed? Hyperbolick (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete this essay. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it is clearly WP:CGC for the purpose of edit farming. This could also fall under WP:U5, in which case the editor should be blocked from editing. JTZegers (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how can you be so sure it's an AI creation? Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It just looks like an AI slop job, with pictures and all. JTZegers (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

btw the author's response also sounds very much AI generated and includes a lot of en dashes in a way that ChatGPT allegedly uses them Laura240406 (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. AI slop, like one from ChatGPT, must be reworded or simplified in the editor's words. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
is this some kind of project? We also have very similar articles (by a different editor) about Ramadan throughout the world, like Ramadan in Indonesia and Ramadan in France. Fram (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
seems like it, those two articles are obviously AI slop (e.g. the first sentence: "Ramadan in Indonesia is a vibrant and spiritual period, deeply rooted in the country's cultural fabric") Laura240406 (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the creator has blanked the article. Additionally, when I looked at their talk page, the response seemed very likely to be AI generated. ❤History Theorist❤ 03:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is in clear violation of policies/guidelines against original research and is likely AI slop. If it is a topic worth an article, I think it would be better to blow it up and start over. ❤History Theorist❤ 03:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 papal conclave papabili

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

See discussion for previous conclave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave. Lists like these are highly speculative and barely deserve mention in other articles, and certainly do not deserve their own article. This does not pass the WP:CRYSTALBALL WP:10YEARTEST. It's always contain by its very nature WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The argument will be made that people are looking for this information, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. In two weeks this article will mean nothing. There will not be any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE after the conclave finishes. If anything it should have some candidates in prose at 2025 papal conclave, or maybe a table at Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an WP:Eventualist, I can assure that there there shall be analyses of the analyses.

And for context: consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this, and if anything, it should be in prose, in the article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Religion, and Christianity. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Subject is receiving massive attention in the global press/media and easily passes GNG. It will almost certainly merit inclusion long term, either as a stand alone article or being merged into the main article on the conclave. How can you have a serious article about a papal conclave w/o discussing the various possible successors? Beyond which, as a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE, the vast majority of those coming to Wikipedia over the conclave are going to be looking for information about the various papabili. Removing this kind of well sourced content would be a serious disservice to our readers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: This sort of list is definitely WP:USEFUL, but almost certainly not encyclopedic. As stated in my !vote below, this is above all else a matter of original research in compiling what boils down to Wikipedia's own curated list of frontrunners, which is not something we should have as an encyclopedia. If readers want to read about potential frontrunners (which, I stress, can be no more than speculative), they should simply peruse their news source of choice. The only encyclopedic list we can curate already exists at Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is that the elector cardinals is a well-defined set and the set of papabili is not. I've only found (and cited) one analysis of the criteria in play. kencf0618 (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to me, the claim by User:Darth Stabro that "consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this" is only in the context of the papabili section of the 2025 papal conclave article itself; there was never any consensus about some speculative table existing elsewhere in Wikipedia on that particular talk page. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But Delete. Let me copy what I said about the problems with the list of papabili in the Papabili section of the 2013 papal conclave article in Talk:2025 papal conclave#Who is eligible to be listed as Papabili? since it equally applies to the article here: The point of papabili sections and articles and lists of papabili in the papal conclave articles is to document which cardinals the media considers to be likely candidates for being the next pope. We should require reliable secondary sources on the topic of the media's papabili, not just links to random media outlets' lists of papabili. That is, any cardinal X can be included in a list of the media's papabili on Wikipedia if a reliable secondary source says something along the lines of "the media said that cardinal X is a likely candidate in [YEAR] papal conclave". The problem with the list of the media's papabile in this article is that none of the references are reliable secondary sources about the media's papabile; it's all just synthesis / original research using primary sources. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The National Catholic Reporter just published a survey of the media; this counts as a secondary source, I think. https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/meet-12-men-who-could-be-pope

kencf0618 (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the 2025 papal conclave. Perhaps it would be best to merge the two articles because it would be most prudent for the future. M.VIPSANIUS.AGRIPPA (talk)
Keep: Per Ad Orientem. Times have changed and we are getting way more hits on the article than 2013. Papabili are discussed everywhere and hence, it's not OR or SYNTH. There will not be any coverage after conclave itself is a projected prediction and hence COMMONSENSE takes precedence, IMO. — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 papal conclave as WP:RECENTISM not warranting splitting. After the conclave and new pope, the papabili list would no longer be actual and of limited interest IMO. Brandmeister^talk 08:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave: No other papal conclave has an article dedicated to its papabili. If no other conclave's papabili have merited their own article, despite having notable papabili, then this should not be any different. I cannot see this information being pertinent once a new Pope is selected. WP:NOTNEWS Flangalanger (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't really a great argument in AfD. Those conclaves could just as easily have a list created for them if the sourcing exists. RachelTensions (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has enough media attention and merging it back into the main article would continue the war Braganza (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i am fine with merging it into Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave Braganza (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge): the main problem with such a list isn't that papabili are not notable in and of themselves, it's simply that there is no subjective way we could determine who counts as one. As stated above, it would be blatantly original research for us to handpick sources to use and then impose an arbitrary threshold on the number of sources (e.g. seven). What this means is that this article is basically Wikipedia's own curated list of frontrunners. This is inappropriate because of WP:OR and because we are not a newspaper. For avoidance of doubt, I don't object to talking about papabili at all, simply that all we need is a paragraph in 2025 papal conclave saying: "news source X listed [...] as papabili, and news source Y also listed [...]" – that is as much as we are allowed to do as an encyclopedia. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If a merge is what is decided on, I would propose as a target not 2025 papal conclave, but Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. That is where a similar table existed prior to the creation of this article, and the existence of a table has already been rehashed several times and shot down in favor of prose at Talk:2025 papal conclave ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 12:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete I am not convinced that media speculation about who might be pope is of lasting interest. And as we all know, "he who goes into the conclave a pope comes out a cardinal." Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep if it can't exist on the 2025 conclave page, and it can't exist on the papabile page, it has to exist somewhere. Scuba 14:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to exist somewhere? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it was only removed from the Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave page to create this page. So it would be false to say it wasn't existing anywhere. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just stating that nobody is going to care about these people in the future is crystalballing and not a reason to delete the article. Cortador (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2025 papal conclave - While the nomination seems to be WP:CRYSTAL at best, I do agree that it would make more sense to put the table in the article itself, rather than a separate page. JTZegers (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and oppose merge if deleted. Section was already removed from the 2025 papal conclave page after discussion, but receives enough coverage for it's own page Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I don't see why the 2013 page was deleted either honestly.★Trekker (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis is pure speculation and the list is generated out of pure synthesis. Carbon case of WP:NOT. None of the presented keep arguments is supported by policy.T v x1 07:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes I'm baffled by the 'shifting sands' of notability arguments here. Sourced articles from a number of different sources about the selection of the next Pope shouldn't be the target of deletion. Surely this article is exactly what Wikipedia should be collating? Current, important, notable: it passes the "Pokémon test". But maybe it's just the state of Wikipedia now, where deletion is the standard and building an encyclopedia has become unfashionable. doktorb _words^deeds 07:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep WP:SYNTH is moot; our sources are journalism and gambling. WP:UNDUE is moot; we have one cited 2015 peer-reviewed study (Forecasting the outcome of closed-door decisions; evidence from 500 years of papal conclaves) and one 2020 book. And Fantapapa. And a plethora of citations. WP:Recentism, WP:NotNews, and WP:CrystalBall are moot; historically some papabili carry over. Our criteria variously conflict, hence the circular firing squad of recent days. That said, we can't not use the data available; you dance with them that brungs ya. kencf0618 (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2025 papal conclave : I don't really see why it has to be its own page. If there isn't a separate page for the papabili in the other conclaves, then where's the point in this page existing? Just because it's the latest one doesn't necessarily mean it's more important. HOPPIO [talk] 14:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (to supplement my !vote above): The problem with this article isn't that papabili aren't notable; they definitely are. A good reason why we shouldn't have a list of them is because there is simply no objective inclusion criteria for the cardinals who should appear here. WP:LISTCRITERIA states that the criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. Simply put, even with the current state of this list, there are many other cardinals for whom we could easily find more than seven references, and we can never be sure that we have listed them all. In my opinion, this list doesn't belong in an encyclopedia but in a newspaper, and a newspaper we are not. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we shouldn't have a list of them, then why have them in prose?

kencf0618 (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2025 papal conclave per the merge comments above. Sundayclose (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to the 2025 papal conclave. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, no need for a separate article. Nevermore27 (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some Background Each papal conclave from 1939 onwards has a papabile section. I'm working up an omnibus table (revamping the List of papal conclaves) for ease of reference in my sandbox, starting at 1903. Just adding up the cited names the number of papabile are are, respectively, 0,0,0, nine or more than twelve, 5, 10, 2, 2, 8, and TBD. Would this table be subject to Afd? Apply the same logic. kencf0618 (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 papal conclave per WP:NOPAGE. Graham (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no doubt a Pope will be elected before anything can be done about this article and when one is, the list becomes basically irrelevant. The article should not outlive the conclave itself.Amyzex (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave per WP:NOPAGE. I'll also take a moment to note my opinion that some sort of actual list in the article is fine. I don't want my merge vote to be used as a cudgel against any editor with an interest in writing about papabile. Wikipedians with a greater interest in the subject can in fact come up with a guideline for inclusion that does not require original research. I believe Wikipedia is a work in progress and it is fine for names to be added to and fall off such a list over time.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge with 2025 papal conclave.) I understand the instinct that we shouldn't be mucking about in the weeds here making judgement calls about who gets on the list. On other elections pages these choices are commonplace: what states/seats do you characterize as 'swing', what prognosticator's election ratings are notable enough to include in a table, or, most relevant here, who are the main candidates in a future election. See: 2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries (Ugh, what an unwieldy list). We have to make judgement calls sometimes, and I think the seven source requirement is a decent measure of whether someone is considered a frontrunner. Side note: without this page existing, 2025 papal conclave and Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave will go right back to getting constant edits adding, removing, tweaking the papabili list. Having it here makes it more manageable. If it balloons at least it isn't harming the other two pages. The Savage Norwegian 19:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only who are the primary (and secondary and tertiary, as applicable) prospects, but who were; cardinals carry over from conclave to conclave and American political candidates from election cycle to election cycle, after all. kencf0618 (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Thriley (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not necessary and can be in other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bte3000 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not necessary. If the 2013 edition could be deleted, this should. The 2013 papabili was more notable in my opinion. João^hola 18:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unpredictable! Please wait with writing about this until after the conclave. Happytravels (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an WP:Eventualist, I can assure you there shall be analyses of the analyses. kencf0618 (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mere speculation. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - literally dozens of reliable sources from around the world, showing significant coverage. It's non-stop coverage on all the networks, newspapers, and webs. Bearian (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do all the sources list the same cardinals as frontrunners? If not, we can't curate our own list as this page does. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the stand-alone article, merge key information. Like the list articles created for previous papal conclaves, this one is highly speculative, and fails multiple Wikipedia standards, as noted above. Drdpw (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge This is way to much for just speculation to have a standalone article with this much detail. Merging to Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave is quite appropriate because it already has the same columns for country, position, and date created cardinal, allowing for a simpler presentation. Reywas92^Talk 16:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. I think there is value (that passes WP:10YEARTEST) in tracking papabili, as it reflects divisions and issues within the church. It is similar to tracking discussed candidates for political elections. That said, a separate article is overkill, and likely incomplete given that so many of the electors are discussed as papabili. So why not merge this with the electors article, perhaps just by adding a column to the table of electors tracking references for papabili discussion? Mgruhn (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others' arguments. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something?) 20:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave: It makes more sense to have one detailed article about the subject than many undetailed articles. And why should this one have a papabili article when no other conclave has one? Hlsci (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This is a solid article on candidates, one which holds its place among articles on the Catholic Church. Although a merger back into the 2025 papal conclave wouldn't be that harmful, this is a good standard to set on candidates for Pope, and I would love to see even more detail here. It could even be expanded in the future, with historical detail. PickleG13 (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave. There is definitely some good sourced material worth keeping here, and it can be incorporated into the article on the conclave itself, but having a separate article is WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme Keep: This is major news and people deserve to be reading about who may become the next pope so this should not be deleted under any circumstances. Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave. Short=term info, e.g. election candidates, horses, is trivial after the event. WP:EVENT has relevant issues.
Keep: There is enough sources to justify a stand alone article. Lightoil (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into 2025 papal conclave. If the table/list is based on published WP:RSes, then it should be considered encyclopedic, much like electoral polling is relevant to election articles, and odds are relevant to sporting event articles. The existence and coverage of public speculation is factual; that's different than the speculations being themselves facts. (We have articles on God, not because there is consensus that God is true, but that there is consensus that people believe in God.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of reliable sources, but they are all WP:OR or WP:PRIMARY. In order to have any sort of proper, Wikipedia page on the topic, we would need articles reporting on who articles are calling papabili - not the articles calling people papabili themselves. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extremely speculative with no concrete definition of who is considered papabili. Baseless media speculation should not be an article, just as we don't have people considered likely to win the 2028 United States Presidential Election. At most a merge to main article if there is anything of substance here. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with deleting this article, but to be fair, we do have articles about primary elections and the vice presidential shortlists. Flangalanger (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others; article contains information useful in the 2025 Papal Conclave page (or the cardinal electors page) for popular speculation on who we all thought the next pope would be, but we are not the news nor are we a speculation site. ❤History Theorist❤ 01:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave per WP:NOPAGE (the information is already in the prose at 2025 papal conclave). We use editorial judgement whether a stand-alone page should be created or whether the information is best incorporated into another page. In this case, the nom is correct, the list was highly speculative and would not pass WP:10Y. --Enos733 (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any consensus here and I think arguments might change now that the decision has been made and made quickly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2025 papal conclave#Papabili. These cardinals weren't declared candidates in a political election and shouldn't be presented in a way that makes them look as though they were. Rather, they were the subject of media speculation as potential contenders to be elected, which is notable enough to be mentioned in an appropriate article but not a reasonable selection for an article of its own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:28, 10 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Church and Conversion

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

There do not appear to be any neutral, third-party sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the whole book about him there is sigcov for a solid two pages [5] also [6] Contemporary reviews [7] [8]... there appears to be a lot more [9]. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: SIGCOV in varied RSs clearly evident. Looking at PARAKANYAA's assessment above, I think we should consider a speedy keep. Somewhat unrelated, but article is written quite poorly. @Terot: please consider spending more time in the drafting space before publishing an article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article only describes neutrally the content of the book, giving light about the author's central ideas. This is useful plainly to explain Chesterton's thought in his other works. I don't see how it would be reasonably necessary to show the aftermath of the book, or the possible flaws of his thinking in an encyclopedia article merely about one of his more personal autobiographical works, just to keep it in Wikipedia instead of deletion. Besides that, there are lots of neutral sources in various Chesterton biographies which will give more points of view. (Terot (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Well... if the book did have some sort of impact (negative or otherwise) then that would be something worth including in the article, as long as it was neutrally written and properly sourced. If it was something more discussed as an example then a long section about how people responded to Chesterton's work would be ill placed here - that would be a main article type of deal. But a sentence or two along the lines of "Historians and critics of his work saw it as an example of Chesterton's larger views on Catholicism... yadda yadda" would be fine.

I'll post on the article's talk page so that I don't derail the convo here too much. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the coverage provided above, it has also been reviewed in New Blackfriars (here) and The Furrow (here). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as reviews as identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:52, 4 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.

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 merge‎ to Seventh-day Adventist Church#Structure and polity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

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

This was proposed for deletion by Catfurball (talk · contribs) last year, with the rationale When I did a Google search I found almost no third-party references and those that I found were only trivial, this proves to me that this article is not notable. That was contested by someone else who believed this was better suited to an AfD, but that did not happen at the time — instead, Catfurball today started a second PROD nomination. PROD is a one-and-done process, so I procedurally contested it with the intent of bringing the article here. While I agree with the prior deprodder that this would be best suited to a discussion, I am neutral and have no other opinion here; this is as much a procedural nomination as anything else. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I did another Google search of this article and still there are almost no third-party references that talk about it. Those that I found were only trivial, so this proves to me that this article fails WP:ORG. Catfurball (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC) To any administrator that closes this discussion you will have to delete all of the redirects that are connected to it first. Catfurball (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment Some of this needs to be merged into Seventh-day Adventist Church#Structure_and_polity as it is barely mentioned there, but I would agree there is no reason to have a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are numerous scholarly books discussing this topic on Google Books. Jahaza (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly doubt that. There may be discussions of the history of the SDAs which involve this body, but I doubt very much that there is all that much on the conference itself. Mangoe (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Land's Historical Dictionary of the Seventh-Day Adventists (2nd edition, Rowman and Littlefield, 2015) has a 690 word article just on the General Conference as a whole[10]]. There are also numerous additional articles on related topics, such as individual sessions of the General Conference.
R. Clifford Jones's James K. Humphrey and the Sabbath-Day Adventists (U of Mississippi Press, 2006)[11] writes quite a bit about the racial policy of the General Conference and its establishment within the Conference of a "North American Negro Department".
Stefan Höschele's Adventist Interchurch Relations: A Study in Ecumenics (V&R Unipress, a Brill imprint, 2022)[12] covers the ecumenical policy of the General Conference.
Laura Lee Vance, Seventh-Day Adventism in Crisis: Gender and Sectarian Change in an Emerging Religion (U of Illinois Press, 1999)[13] has a discussion of the General Conference as a whole and then info on various policies of the General Conference over time on gender issues. --Jahaza (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge agree with Mangoe for key info here to be merged into Seventh-day Adventist Church#Structure_and_polity to preserve content of article at least, as the citations cited does seem too closely associated with the subject, for it to be standalone.Villkomoses (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I 100% agree with User:Mangoe that we do not need a separate article. Catfurball (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For engagement with Jahaza's suggested sources, added after the most recent merge !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sources identified by Jahaza would support a standalone article but I'm not opposed to a comprehensive merge to Seventh-day Adventist Church#Structure_and_polity as it is certainly relevant to that article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 9 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.

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

No articles proposed for deletion at this time

Categories for discussion

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

Miscellaneous