Evangelical Times: Most of the sources in the article are primary sources; the two which are not are from Evangelicals Now and about former editors, rather than the newspaper itself.  I can find very little sourcing elsewhere that goes beyond passing mentions.  The newspaper is treated as some length in this one book but the book is published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing which has questionable reliability.  Similar material by the same author also seems to have been published in two journal articles .  Since these are all by the same author, the best that they amount to is one source for the purposes of GNG.  Further, these publications are all primarily focused on analysing the depiction of Muslims in British Christian media, so I'd say it is a stretch to call it significant coverage anyway.  WJ94 ( talk ) 17:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Christianity ,  and United Kingdom .  WJ94 ( talk ) 17:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Upon reviewing every domain on the web that has mentioned the subject, there are no reliable, independent sources with significant coverage.  The scientific articles linked by WJ94 may be the result of the author's own choice to investigate low-credible independent print media or research misconduct.  Sources stemming from Vatican State-run businesses such as the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church are not independent.  Multi7001 ( talk ) 03:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I accept that the publication does not meet the threshold for an article in Wikipedia, but it would be useful for this information to be preserved somewhere.  May it be transferred to, say, wikichristian.org or Theopedia.com, listing attribution on the talk page there?  Likewise Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evangelicals Now .  – Fayenatic L ondon 15:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those wikis you mention are completely unrelated to Wikipedia and, to be honest, it is not our job to provide content for them.  If they want to write article on these publications, they are free to do so but that shouldn't interrupt our processes.  Further, I think there would be issues with them directly importing material from Wikipedia since to do so would require attribution, which in turn would require keeping the history of the article (if I have interpreted that correctly).  WJ94 ( talk ) 09:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 18:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- This is not a mere internal church magazine.   The fact that it has lasted over 50 years with successive editors and offices in a succession of places.   Evangelicalism in Britain covers a variety of churches belonging to various denominations (or none), but it is a relatively coherent movement.   I would be happier if there was some indication of the level of circulation.   Clearly this is not a hoax.  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 17:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Who said it was a hoax?  It certainly exists, the question is of notability.  JMWt ( talk ) 05:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We are not debating whether evangelicalism is notable - it clearly is.  This does not mean that a publication related to evangelicalism must be notable.  There are a lot of publications which have lasted a long time, had multiple editors, and been based in a lot of places but are not notable.  Are there specific criteria of WP:NMAGAZINE which you think the Evangelical Times meets, or alternatively do you have any independent reliable sources which cover it in significant detail?  WJ94 ( talk ) 09:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Peterkingiron Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  All information must be cited from reliable, independent sources.  The article in question is more than 1,780 words long, and not one reliable, independent source with significant coverage is cited.  I did a quick review of a database that shows all domains on the web that mention or link to it and could not find anything.  Furthermore, the article reads as promotional as a result.  It should have been subjected to speedy deletion when it was patrolled.  Multi7001 ( talk ) 15:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Certainly appears to be notable.  Long-running and widely distributed publication.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 08:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is not, as keeps being erroneously stated, a "church newsletter."  It is a newspaper which reaches across denominations.   Its core edition reaches across Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England and its International Edition has a global reach.   Further "Evangelicals Now" is not an affiliated organisation but a rival production hence very much an independent source.   It is reasonable to encourage further citations for the Evangelical Times Wikipedia entry.  Gdjonda ( talk ) 15:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: tag instead for More citations needed to give reasonable opportunity to demonstrate notability for this long-standing Evangelical Christian publication, which has been a highly-regarded source on historical, theological and current affairs topics for Evangelical Christians for nearly 60 years.  It is widely cited in that respect, which could be evidenced better.  There is demonstrable influence and standing evident in the many content citations to be found in Wikipedia's articles alone on significant Christian figures, authors, topics, institutions etc (it is relatively easy to find these using a google wiki domain filtered search).  In fairness neither can the notability of the authors writing for the publication, currently and in the past, be overlooked and this could also be much better evidenced by an update to the current edit.  Angelageary ( talk ) 12:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is quite bizarre reasoning.  Are you really trying to tell us that any magazine which has high regard amongst it's readership is by definition notable on en.wiki?  I dispute that it can be considered to be a highly-regarded source on historical, theological and current affairs topics for Evangelical Christians for nearly 60 years.  For one thing, it holds an ultra-conservative view that the vast majority of Evangelicals reject, as shown by the tiny readership compared to the total number of Evangelicals.  If you disagree with this assessment, kindly offer some third party reliable sources that support your position.  JMWt ( talk ) 13:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] An apparent ad hominem attack on my ability to reason is not constructive, particularly alongside the assumptions made about political views.  not a relevant 'assessment' to this discussion.  Angelageary ( talk ) 09:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not ad hominem .  JMWt did not say that you cannot reason, but that they found the reasoning you offered bizarre.  It was an attack on your argument, not you.  The point remains - do you have reliable independent sources you could offer which would support your claim that this publication is as important as you claim it is?  WJ94 ( talk ) 12:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG.  32page monthly church newsletter.  Unsourced and the above keeps have provided no sources.  Keeps want more time, but this has been unsourced since 2011, 12 years is enough.  BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS.  // Timothy :: talk 12:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 12:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Its a newspaper and it has seven references and has always had some references Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Actually it has six sources, not seven (one is a duplicate).  But since you brought them up, Here they are: Comments Source Primary author founded subject, Brief mentions when talking about individuals, no SIGCOV.  1. Masters, Peter (2008).  Men of Destiny.  London: Wakeman Trust.  ISBN 9781870855556.  Duplicate of above  2. ^ Masters, Peter (2003).  Men of Purpose.  London: Wakeman Trust.  ISBN 1870855418.  Tribute about a contributor, no information about subject, from an affliated organization, fails IS Evangelicals Now". www.e-n.org.uk. Retrieved 2021-07-27. Obit about a contributor, no information about subject, from an affliated organization, fails IS Evangelicals Now".  www.e-n.org.uk.  Retrieved 2021-07-27.  Primary  5. ^ "Missionary extraordinary – An appreciation of Bill Clark".  Evangelical Times.  1999-01-01.  Retrieved 2021-07-27.  Primary  6. ^ "News – Evangelical Times editors".  Evangelical Times.  2009-08-01.  Retrieved 2021-07-27.  Primary  7. ^ "Roger Fay retires after 11 years as editor, succeeded by Mike Judge".  Evangelical Times.  2018-12-18.  Retrieved 2021-07-27.  Which of the above show that the subject has multiple independent reliable sources with direct and indepth significant coverage of the subject?  // Timothy :: talk 20:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't access the two book sources, perhaps you could give a link for accessing them.  They seem to be 2 different publications.  I agree about the other sources, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The man who founded the Evangelical Times wrote the two books cited.  Furthermore, the author of those books is Peter Masters, whose notability as a public figure is questionable because he is only best known for working with an independent business in central London that operates similar to a Vatican State-run faction.  The page should have been terminated when it was patrolled years ago.  Multi7001 ( talk ) 22:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why do you keep comparing it to something from the Vatican?  Please stop, that has nothing to do with this discussion.  JMWt ( talk ) 07:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The man who founded the Evangelical Times wrote the two books cited.  this means they fail WP:IS and cannot be used as sources showing notability.  Noting this because I have updated the above source eval table.  // Timothy :: talk 08:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to add, there is one other book cited in the article - this one .  However, there does not appear to be any mention of the Evangelical Times in this book.  One further source was added yesterday, an obituary for a previous editor.  This source is not about the Evangelical Times and mentions the newspaper only once in passing.  WJ94 ( talk ) 09:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Google books is possibly not as reliable as pulling a book off the shelf and looking up the page reference.  Please See the actual mentions of 'Evangelical Times' highlighted in this page scan from the book, as cited.  I link it here: https://ufile.io/v5awndpt as there doesn't seem a way to add an image to this comment box.  Angelageary ( talk ) 13:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure we should be scanning pages from books in discussions here and I'm not downloading it even if it is ok.  So maybe you can describe the contents and the "mentions" - bearing in mind that "significant coverage" means more than a couple of sentences.  JMWt ( talk ) 19:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I'm finding quite a lot in Google Books (although there are a lot of false positives, too).  It is a " leading British evangelical newspaper " and the " organ of principled separatism ".  See also the significant coverage here .  St Anselm ( talk ) 16:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Re your very last link above, can you explain how it is "significant"?  As far as I can tell there are a few passing mentions which don't amount to more than a paragraph in total.  What am I missing?  JMWt ( talk ) 18:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to Google Books, there are 37 mentions throughout the whole book.  St Anselm ( talk ) 19:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok.. .  and this amounts to significant coverage how, exactly?  JMWt ( talk ) 19:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure if you have seen the list on Google Books - I suspect not, otherwise you would not say "a few passing mentions".  The author makes a sustained argument concerning the way ET deals with Islam.  Along with three other newspapers, this is what the book is all about .  And yes, it is definitely RS: it is the author's published PhD dissertation from the University of Bristol .  St Anselm ( talk ) 01:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So, the four newspapers seleted as representative of "British Christian News Media" are the Church Times , The Tablet , Evangelicals Now and the Evangelical Times .  In light of this, Evangelicals Now should not have been deleted either.  St Anselm ( talk ) 02:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have now read several other related papers by the academic in question.  What you say is true as far as it goes but I'm not really convinced that using a minority conservative publication as a representative of "Christian media" when making an argument about Muslim perception is really suggestive of notability nor meets the GNG.  For sure that academic thought it was a useful analysis, but if someone had done the same for a neo-Nazi publication, would we then say it (the theoretical neo-Nazi publication) was notable?  Even if we accept it as a RS which shows the acceptable level of notability, that's just one source.  JMWt ( talk ) 06:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ETA: it would be ironic if this page was kept on the basis that an academic found it was (I think it is fair to say) pushing a generally negative line on Muslims.  JMWt ( talk ) 06:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure what you mean by "ironic".  And yes, if there was a neo-Nazi publication used as the basis of a PhD thesis - yes, it would probably make it notable (though I take your point about a second source).  It's just that such publications are usually small, fringe, and generally ignored by everyone else.  St Anselm ( talk ) 15:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I mean ironic in the sense that the author of the source clearly thought the line tajen by the ET was destructive and this isn't a part of the page as it is written.  I doubt many who are ! voting keep would be happy if the page reflected that pretty much the only reason it was notable was that it spread negative views on Muslims.  I don't believe that a neo-Nazi publication studied briefly in a PhD thesis would be notable on en.wiki.  At best it might be mentioned on a page discussing the history of neo-Nazi publications.  JMWt ( talk ) 15:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, I wouldn't have a problem with that, myself - but I would say the other reason it is notable is the part it plays in the 1966 split, as described by Iain Murray - and that is reflected in the article.  St Anselm ( talk ) 16:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] well the split happened for sure and it was well publicised by DML-J and his acolytes.  The question then is whether this (pretty small-beer) split that was only important to those who respected DML-J's ultra-conservative Evangelical views and whether a tiny publication which really does operate as a doctrinal newspaper (which I appreciate is an oxymoron given many involved consider their churches to not be a denomination) is important.  I say no.  For sure it can be a part of David Martyn Lloyd-Jones and possibly a separate page discussing the split but this publication really had a minor role outwith of those directly involved.  JMWt ( talk ) 16:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These are mentions, none have significant coverage, some fail IS RS.  // Timothy :: talk 20:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ( edit conflict ) The last book is the one I mentioned in my nomination statement (I'm not sure if the link I posted worked properly).  It is published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing which is dubious as a reliable source.  It is listed on Beall's List of potentially predatory publishers; see also the comments here .  As for the other two, the first is published by Xlibris , a self-publishing (and therefore unreliable) publisher.  The second has, as far as I can tell, only passing references to the Evangelical Times (Google Books is quite limited but it is in my local library; if I have the time I'll try to get down there and have a look for myself).  WJ94 ( talk ) 20:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, I didn't pick up the Xlibris publication.  St Anselm ( talk ) 02:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've got hold of the Bebbington book from the library.  I can find only one reference to the Evangelical Times on page 267.  The Federation of Independent Evangelical Churches was immeasurably strengthened by Lloyd-Jones's support; the Evangelical Movement of Wales in 1967 permitted churches disenchanted with their previous denominations to affiliate direct; and The Evangelical Times was launched in the same year as the monthly organ of principled separatism.  This one brief mention does not constitute significant coverage.  WJ94 ( talk ) 13:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : If I had to narrow it down to two sources giving the subject a GNG pass, it would be Faimau (discussed above) and Iain H. Murray in his biography of David Martyn Lloyd-Jones (vol. 2, p. 537f) which is not available online.  St Anselm ( talk ) 15:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, that's really helpful.  As I've said above, I'm not convinced of the reliability or significance of coverage for the Faimau sources, but they do seem to be the strongest candidate for GNG.  Although I have not got access to the Murray book, I'm finding it hard to see this as significant coverage from what I have seen.  Further, our article on Iain Murray states that he worked as David Martyn Lloyd-Jones's assistant for three years, which puts the independence of the source into question.  I agree that this is an edge case, and I can understand why some might see this narrowly passing GNG but, to my mind, the sourcing isn't sufficient to establish significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources.  At best, I'd concede there's maybe one source (Faimau) that meets this description.  WJ94 ( talk ) 17:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Iain Murray is a very well-respected historian (at least in Reformed evangelical circles).  Even if he's not independent of DML-J, he's still independent of ET.  St Anselm ( talk ) 18:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it depends what you mean.  DML-J and Murray are/were close, and they are very likely are/were close to many of those who write and publish ET.  The Conservative Reformed Evangelical world is small in the UK.  Has Murray ever written for or been involved in the production of ET?  Do we know for certain even of that?  Edit: the answer to the last question appears to confirm what I thought - he is close and has written for ET 1 at JMWt ( talk ) 19:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ET has had over 600 authors since 1967 , and like Murray, many respected authors, reformed academics, theologians and thinkers within the domain of reformed evangelicalism are amongst them.  Surely by that logic, no one who has ever contributed to a periodical or journal can be validly referenced in relation to it?  Angelageary ( talk ) 08:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Individuals and entities connected to the subject are not independent reliable sources; they may be used for basic facts in an article, but non-independent sources do not show notabilty .  I think the Iain H. Murray bio mention above will end up being a brief mention, so I requested a copy from the UCLA library.  // Timothy :: talk 09:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We can't use people who are closely associated with a publication as sources to show notability as per WP:GNG .  So yes, there are questions of independence if someone writes a history of a publication who has previously written for them or is closely associated with it.  The history may be very well written, the issue not that the author thinks (in this case) ET is important, the purpose of the WP:GNG is to avoid simply egging up things by repeating things that non-independent sources say about things they are closely associated with.  JMWt ( talk ) 09:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, but I don't think we have necessarily included contributors to a periodical in the category of those closely associated with it - only editors and publishers.  St Anselm ( talk ) 14:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Using editors and publishers is still a problem, they are not independent reliable sources.  NPOV is an issue with these sources; I know you don't consider this a problem currently because the sources under discussion have a positive bias towards the subject, but imagine if some starting adding negative sources, perhaps a disgruntled ex-contributor, or someone associated with them that now views their positions differently.  Using these sources is not acceptable because they are biased and Wikipedia does not distinguish between positive and negative POV sources: it's all considered inappropriate sourcing.  Sources must be neutral (see WP:NPOV for Wikipedia's definition of neutral), reliable WP:RS and independent WP:IS .  This is why sourcing guidelines are critical.  Insisting on high quality independent, reliable, neutral sources protects subjects and the encyclopedia.  // Timothy :: talk 16:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't agree that NPOV has anything to do with the sources - which almost by definition cannot be neutral JMWt ( talk ) 19:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Due to source analysis by Timothy.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Agree, it fails WP:GNG .  CastJared ( talk ) 15:46, 28 April 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete