Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard
Welcome to the Christianity Noticeboard
This page serves to coordinate the various discussions taking place throughout the Christianity-related project talkpages. Even though , there are numerous Christianity-related projects, with many different conversations going on at the same time. This Noticeboard hopes to achieve some kind of order in keeping track of the various goings-on. You are welcome to add to the discussion.
It's Complicated, Read Below -- (how's that for wishy-washy! sorry closing Admin!) The entire article's pass/fail to me is based on WP:PROF#C6: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." -- without this, I don't see anything in WP:PROF or WP:GNG or anything else to save the article. So we come to the (actually quite rare you'd be surprised) position of determining what "major" means about colleges etc. -- at the height of the seminary it had 1,800 students, which I think is on the KEEP side of what "major" would generally mean. But I looked at the negative side: "does the institution have 1,000 students today?" not close: 200-300. Does the institution have consisent and significant major press coverage about it? [1] Christianity Today 2022 article would be one good point for it, but I'd think that a "major" university would have at least one press article per year about it that I could defend as "significant" but except for some bit stories about the success (and failure) of their basketball teams, I can't find anything. So without setting a precedent about any College presidents of even a smidgen of greater notability, I will !vote Delete -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)09:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. C6 is reserved for major research universities; tiny Bible colleges that only offer associates and bachelor's are very far from that standard. This person is not an academic and so doesn't qualify for any other NPROF criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that this isn’t too far below the standard so don’t want to set a precedent for the next school that has a little more press coverage and notability. But I agree with you on the outcome. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)08:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. I don't think this school is up to the level of #C6. So, as for high school principals (who often lead larger institutions and also don't qualify for #C6) we need to go by WP:GNG instead, but we have no evidence of notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in New York (state)#LPTV stations: as the creator of this article all the way back in 2006, I can assure you this is little more than a remnant article of the far lower, non-GNG-based inclusion standards of the era. Maybe there's something out there that could instead merit a mention somehow at WNGN (FM) (the co-owned radio station), but a history of mostly national services (or more recently, airing nothing but a random .4 carriage of the radio side) does not exactly suggest significant coverage. (What's left of Google's newspaper archive does have twoarticles in The Daily Gazette mentioning this station, which is more than some other LPTVs, but I don't think they're enough — even if the first article mentions the then-existence of local programming without elaboration.) WCQuidditch☎✎05:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The WaPo, CNA and Austin American-Statesman coverage would all generally qualify as WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS, and NCORP does not have a WP:SUSTAINED requirement (unlike WP:NEVENTS or WP:NPRODUCT). However, all of these sources were published in a blitz of coverage around OnFaith's launch and I don't see any continuing coverage. As a flash in the pan company without any apparent lasting coverage beyond its launch, I'd lean delete, but I think a letter-of-the-law application of NCORP would allow a keep !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This seems like a start up that got a little bit of funding but never really got going, and I suspect part of the reason it got a blitz of media coverage is that the idea of tech products centred around religion is still just a bit of a novelty to most people. I think Dclemens1971 is probably right that the coverage might strictly speaking be enough to pass WP:NCORP, but so much of it is focused on the idea rather than on the company that I'm not sure it really passes the spirit of NCORP. For instance, I can't find a single source covering the fact that the company rebranded or the fact that it shut down, or any sources about its actual operations or userbase. MCE89 (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surviving 15th-century buildings of any kind are clearly notable. Most countries would heritage list them and they'd automatically pass WP:GEOFEAT. Sadly, Italy isn't very good at listing buildings, but the principle still stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete Given a lack of sources, I'm not going to presume an old building is notable simply because it's old; if nobody cares enough to write about it, then it isn't notable. It does actually matter if the Italians don't care about their own buildings, but I would presume that what with the interest in Renaissance art, there ought to be English language sources if there were anything notable about it. And I'm having trouble finding sources beyond the municipal site, possibly because non-Italian sources don't use an Italian name. I wouldn't necessarily oppose a merge, but at the moment I'd really expect to see some sourcing that makes an explicit claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]