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

Chris Taylor (Christian rock musician)

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

Chris Taylor's individual notability boils down to winning a soap jingle contest (of which I can't find any evidence online) and being nominated for a minor music award. This falls well short of the criteria at WP:NSINGER. The information can easily be summarized in a sentence or two at Love Coma; merge per WP:BANDMEMBER. 162 etc. (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Love Coma. On second thought, 100% agreed with LWG. just as Amakuru stated, the award is plausible that he is notable. Needs more references, though. As of now it seems like his relevance is contingent on Love Coma.--Burroughs'10 (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Love Coma. The references in this article could be used to add a note to Love Coma that Chris Taylor went on to a solo career, and a link to Chris's website in Love Coma's external links would cover the rest of the information in this article. -- LWG ^talk 16:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn MacDonald

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

This article seems to be a classic WP:BLP1E; this individual received a burst of viral notability over a couple days in June 2024 for the bell-ringing video. I can't find any independent coverage since that burst of coverage; the only coverage I can find at all is an article from Duke, which is a non-independent source since the subject is an employee of the university chapel. Given that all three provisions of BLP1E are met (the reliable sources cover the person only in relation to a single event, the event itself is non-notable, and the subject remains a low-profile individual), this subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and North Carolina. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Duke Memorial United Methodist Church#Building. Since the viral bell ringing is more interesting as a part of the church history, and the notability standards are not so high, I propose a merge and redirect. A condensed version of the lead as a standalone paragraph at the end of the section and a single source will suffice. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this one-time viral video incident is WP:DUE on that page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete not every viral video needs its own article, see WP:BLP1E. --hroest 20:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Christian School (Morgantown, West Virginia)

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school article, and added a ref. I don't see WP:THREE instances of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, however, and don't think the school meets WP:NCORP, WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Redirect to Morgantown, West Virginia#Private schools is a possibility. Tacyarg (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and West Virginia. Tacyarg (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least Weak Keep. Ideally, I'd like to see more in depth coverage from sources from further away, but there's a lot of documentation and enough I could find from other newspapers in the state.
- "Trinity, St. Francis Schools Expand in Morgantown" (Feb 2006)[1] State Journal, Charleston
- "Trinity Christian School Breaks Ground on New Wing" (November 2004)[2] Dominion Post
- Residents Question Trinity Christians Impact (August 2004)[3] Dominion Post
- "Trinity Christian opens new campus, transportation issues arise"(April 2005)[4] Dominion Post
- "Trinity Adds Finishing Touches" (August 2005)[5] Dominion Post
- "Trinity for sale to highest bidder: Bank looking to sell bankrupt Christian school" (May 2010) [6], Dominion Post
- "Bank wants to sell bankrupt private school in Morgantown"(May 2010) [7], Charleston Gazette
- "Trinity to keep school: Reaches deal with bank for $5 million" (July 2010) [8] Dominion Post
- "Prep Sports:: Morgantown Christian school getting ready to tackle football" (Jan 2009) [9]" Charleston Daily Mail
- More[10][11][12][13][14][15]

There are also hundreds of more routine sports articles, which actually makes it difficult to find the more in depth ones Jahaza (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as private school it will have to pass WP:NORG and I dont see any substantial in depth coverage from multiple independent sources. There is some coverage from a single newspaper but a lot is run of the mill and not in-depth, one single source is not multiple and trivial coverage of sports events does not constitute SIGCOV. --hroest
Weak keep - compared with most independent schools, this seems to get a lot of (at least local) media coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Hedman

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF from his publications listed in scholar, and I can't find any other evidence that he's notable: the Templeton award he won seems to be different from the Templeton prize since that had a different winner in 1993, and the International Association for Jungian Studies doesn't appear to be a selective organization. Psychastes (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: H-index of 6 is exceptionally low for a senior academic; getting an award for a paper from the Templeton Foundation most decidedly not the Templeton Prize. I don't see any evidence of notability here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The better-cited of the papers in his Google Scholar profile seem to be mostly respectable papers in graph theory and the history of mathematics (although I do wonder why one of them is in Hadronic Journal); these are low-citation fields but we can't use the small citation numbers as a reason for keeping. The sources in the article are not in-depth and independent, and searching failed to turn up anything better, so we have no evidence for notability through WP:GNG nor through any WP:PROF criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hedman is not the traditional professor or minister. His areas of study / specialization are definitely niche. And his integration field such as mathematics & religion, Jungian psychology & first people's art are notable. While the his Templeton recognition is not the main prize, he is recognized for his paper in the field of Humility theology, which is again not "mainstream", is notable. - — ERcheck (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a stronger and more specific argument for this than WP:ITSNOTABLE? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that one paper is enough to make a person notable (in Wikipedia's sense of the word), outside of truly exceptional cases. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not totally unheard of, Edmund Gettier is a salient philosophy example, though there are certainly others. but Gettier's paper currently has 6400+ citations in google scholar and largely defined the last 50 years of epistemology, while the paper in discussion here on Cantor has... five, all of which are papers which also have a single digit number of citations. Psychastes (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citability is low, and there is nothing else to indicate notability under WP:PROF or WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, while I could follow the argument of ERcheck in theory that he combines these fields in a unique way we would have to have some external evidence of a source specifically talking about this per WP:NPROF. Usually academic recognition comes in form of highly cited papers which are not present here but they can come from other sources as well (of which there isnt any evidence here either). A single paper award is not enough per NPROF#2, it would have to be a major award from a well established academic society. --hroest 14:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since he is not solely an academic, it seems that holding only to WP:NPROF is too narrow. - — ERcheck (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the standards outside of NPROF are even more stringent, so using NPROF is the most charitable. Do you think he passes WP:GNG? Are there any sources with WP:SIGCOV? As I said I would be happy to keep if you can back your arguments up with a reputable source -- its not enough for you to say that he is notable and exceptional in his field, for an AfD keep !vote we need a reputable source that says so. --hroest 18:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Petersens

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

1. Current article cannot be brought up to standard. Current article uses almost entirely links to the band's own website to support the included statements. I have spent several hours looking for non-affiliated, reputable sources, and I do not believe there is significant, meaningful sources about this band that can support this article. All third party sources that I can find rely heavily on what appears to be press materials from the band, interviews with members of the band, or do not have meaningful, in-depth coverage (such as an announcement of a concert). Article appears likely to have been mostly written by individuals connected to band.

2. Band does not meet notability threshold. The nearest criteria that I can find to apply is that they have completed international concert tour, BUT I cannot find "non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources" about the tour. The most significant source I can find is linked from the current article:

The Petersens tour the Emerald Isle, Bluegrass Today, February 12, 2019. "Soulful family band The Petersens set for Whangārei, Kerikeri shows". NZ Herald.

but coverage is fairly superficial, and this is the only source of this quality that I am able to find. Driftingdrifting (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, and Music. Driftingdrifting (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are a few third party sources:
- "The Petersens pluck, pick and play for Thames," NZ newspaper concert review[16]
- "Ellen Peterson, Banjo Idol," profile of band's banjo player in banjo magazine[17]
- "The Petersens wow packed audience at Cache Valley Cowboy Rendezvous", local Utah news site concert review[18]

I'm not super experienced with band notability. They clearly have toured internationally. And there are enough sources to at least create a stub based on reliable sources. Is that enough? --Jahaza (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pulling the links. Yeah, there are a third party sources, but I don't think they meet the criteria of "non-trival coverage in independent reliable sources". The coverage is not particularly in depth, and these are fairly small publications. Driftingdrifting (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is not nearly so unsalvageable as the nominator suggests, and per WP:NEXIST, there are sufficient independent, reliable-source articles on this band and reviews of their LP to pass WP:NMUSIC#1 and WP:GNG. See Northland Age (NZ Herald), Cache Valley Daily, the Valley Profile, and independent reviews of their LP My Ozark Mountain Home in Aleteia and Bluegrass Today. It's slender, but the pass is clear. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In total agreement with the previous voter. Their reliable media coverage is slim but can still support a stub article. They have been noticed within their distinct niche of the music business. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable group with nearly a million YouTube followers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revue des questions historiques

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

Unsourced translation of the unsourced French article. What at first glance appears to be dozens of sources, turns out to be dozens of articles in the Revue about other things. A few passing mentions here and there, but no significant secondary coverage that I can find. Other than Google, I recommend searching Qwant and Persee; see those links among the set of find-source links on the Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and France. Mathglot (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Serious claim to be first modern scholarly journal in both France and the French language
Publication that went for 80 years
Important in France as an intellectual cornerstone of the Nineteenth Century Catholic revival
Important outside (and in) France as an early stage in exporting German "scientific history" methods
A linked internet archive and 4 (post AfD) references undermine the "unreferenced" claim

JASpencer (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only ref #1 is promising; the rest are passing mentions:

Ref 1: One solid paragraph about the journal; borderline WP:SIGCOV. Replicate this several times in secondary sources, with sources that have deeper treatment, and you probably have it.
Ref 2: mentioned in passing (2x) on page 158; e.g., In sum, the Revue historique served ideological purposes no less than the legitimist and conservative Revue des questions historiques, an historical journal which began to be published ten years earlier, in 1886, and which, as Carbonell writes, has been just about totally ignored by the few French historians who have written on the history of history in France..
Ref 3: One passing mention:

One passing mention

Like the discipline of history, which was divided between the conservative and Catholic Revue des questions historiques (1866) and the republican Revue historique (1876), the major textbooks on the history of law distinguish between, on the one hand, the work of liberals such as Adhémar Esmein and Jean-Baptiste Brissaud and, on the other, those carried out by Catholic jurists (Ernest Glasson, Paul Viollet, and Émile Chénon).

Original: À l'instar de la discipline historique, clivée entre la conservatrice et catholique Revue des questions historiques (1866) et la républicaine Revue historique (1876), les grands manuels d'histoire du droit laissent distinguer, d'un côté, les entreprises menées par des libéraux comme Adhémar Esmein et Jean-Baptiste Brissaud et, de l'autre, ceux réalisés par des juristes catholiques (Ernest Glasson, Paul Viollet et Émile Chénon).

Ref 4: Ten passing mentions. Find more and deeper coverage like #1.

See the links at the Talk page for additional possibilities for sourcing. Mathglot (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are continuing to add citations; that's great. Checking 5 and 6:

Ref 5: Ten passing mentions, with one on p. 111, as you noted. I don't see anything involving a significant treatment of the topic here, but if you can show that there is continual treatment on the three pages from 108 to 111 and not just passing mentions, that might help.
Ref 6: This is a 20-page article by esteemed French historian Charles-Olivier Carbonell about the birth of the similarly named journal, Revue historique, which to a large extent, was founded in reaction to the Revue des questions historiques and mimicked its format but not its content. I would say that this certainly counts as a reliable source with significant coverage of the topic (the first one that does, by my reckoning).

Is he the only French historian who ever wrote about it, or are there other serious treatments of it? Find two more like #6, and you're good. Mathglot (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JASpencer. Absolutely notable. The French version of the article is in much better shape. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Conservatism and Christianity. JASpencer (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ilija Macedonian Orthodox Church, Mississauga

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

Already had a notability template on it. Can't really find any information about it online except the church's "About" page, which has been directly copy-pasted into the article. Currently have a copyvio template up, but it might be best for the article to just go. Spookyaki (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spookyaki (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Christianity. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously self-promotional article of the church. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will note that I tagged this article for notability alongside the other North American Macedonian Orthodox churches listed in this template: St. Nedela (Ajax), Sts. Cyril & Methody (Blasdell), St. Mary (Cambridge), St. Naum of Ohrid (Hamilton), St. Dimitrija Solunski (Markham), St. Ilija (Mississauga), Nativity of the Virgin Mary (Sterling Heights), Dormition of the Virgin Mary (Reynoldsburg), St. Clement of Ohrid (Toronto), St. Nicholas (Windsor). Not explicitly voting here because I haven't conducted a detailed WP:BEFORE, but I'll note that I'm not optimistic based on the lack of coverage for several other churches on this list I looked at. The best chance for coverage may be in Macedonian-language sources. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Suriname0 (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nativity of the Virgin Mary Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral, Sterling Heights, Michigan

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

This building doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. I added the only sources I could find to the article, and the only secondary source with significant coverage is Mactel Australian Macedonian News, which looks tenuously reliable to me. There may be significant coverage in Macedonian language sources. No obvious redirect targets. Suriname0 (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, North Macedonia, and Michigan. Suriname0 (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content itself is mostly generic info about the church and a piece of trivia about it. No indication as to why it is relevant in itself, probably best to include information about it in the Macedonian Orthodox Church linked in the article itself. 37.211.69.56 (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Suriname0 (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To my knowledge we have never deleted a single article about a cathedral of a significant denomination. Don't see any reason why we should start now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Necrothesp, this is my first nom of a building, so I'm glad to hear from an editor experienced in the space. Can you point me to the notability guideline you're using? I only see WP:GNG and WP:NBUILDING, neither of which seem to be met here. Suriname0 (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merely precedent and the fact that cathedrals are by definition significant buildings, so I think WP:COMMONSENSE could be said to apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Reasons to keep: Cathedral, over 50 years old. Reason to delete: not a huge amount of sources independent of the denomination. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I don't like arguing that there's presumed notability, but we have verified that the cathedral is real and part of a major denomination (as opposed to a denomination of eight people with a house they call a cathedral). A good AtD option should deletion look more likely is redirecting to Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of America and Canada, the diocese that the cathedral is the seat of. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of America and Canada: I am as likely as Necrothesp to lean toward keeping an article on a cathedral of a major church tradition, but I don't think that's the best option here -- precisely because I don't think we can currently verify it is a cathedral. The church's website uses the name church for it, with one brief mention to cathedral in its history. Same with MACTEL. A search of the book South Slavs in Michigan doesn't turn up a reference to its being a cathedral. Meanwhile, our article on the diocese says that another church is the cathedral: Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary, Reynoldsburg. The diocese's website is long dormant and auto-translate isn't working well on the archived version so it's hard to verify with that source. In the absence of strong evidence that this church is indeed the cathedral or a recognized co-cathedral I don't think we even have grounds for an WP:IAR keep so I am going with an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect InvisibleUser909 (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would anyone like to reconsider their !votes in light of Dclemens's findings?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per its long history, reasonable population and being the headquarter of a recognized diocese. Patre23 (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Junction Colorado Temple

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

1. Subject does not meet WP:GNG as per WP:ORG and WP:NCHURCH. A dash of WP:TOOSOON as it would appear the church is not even open yet.

2. WP:PROMOTIONAL tone.

3. Overt reliance on WP:PRIMARY sources. It would appear that only two secondary sources are here.

Regardless, while points two and three might be addressed, point one will not be.

MWFwiki (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion, although these concerns could be fixed with a re-write so maybe move it to a draft. Sushidude21! (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, possibly until September It looks like this temple will open later this year. That said, you may have a case that the articles on these buildings are overly reliant on LDS Church sources. Looking at this one, we have three articles from two sources (KJCT and KKCO share a newsroom — if I had a nickel for every time Gray Television came up at an AfD I'd reviewed in the last week, I'd have two nickels, but whatever). Every remaining reference is direct from the LDS Church or an affiliate like Church News or LDS Living. There is a substantial amount of puffy wording that could be cut down. I note an earlier redirect attempt was reverted by the creator of the current text. I want to see Happyrain2121 contribute as they have been very active in temple articles. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Draftify': There is likely to be sufficient independent WP:SIGCOV generated after the temple's completion to result in a WP:GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot assume whether or not there will be SIGCOV. Draftspace doesn't exist to park a topic until SIGCOV materializes. If it were opening in a week, sure, I'd support this... but outright claiming that will "likely be sufficient independent SIGCOV" is TOOSOON with a dash of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Regardless, SIGCOV arguably already technically exists, but we don't have it in the form of independent RSs. I'm not arguing to salt the subject, but I also didn't submit this article. MWFwiki (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what draftspace is for. Every other LDS temple has an article. I'm not saying this one should have an article in the absence of SIGCOV. I'm just saying that it's almost certain to have it by the time it's completed. No point in deleting and then having to undelete it later when we can just draftify it until the right coverage emerges. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftspace exists to "improve" an article. It is not "exactly" for parking an article to wait for SIGCOV to materialize. We also cannot assume SIGCOV will exist or not. It doesn't, presently. WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is not a replacement for SIGCOV. MWFwiki (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Improvement" includes looking for and waiting for sources. If in six months there are no sources and the draft is not improved, it will be deleted. If returned to mainspace without improvements, then it can be deleted. I participate a lot at AfD and I've !voted plenty of times for deletion, but it always makes more sense (and is more welcoming to page creators and thus supportive of new editor retention) to give articles on topics likely to be notable in the near future a chance to hang out in draftspace. Regardless, I looked at the history of this page, and it was a redirect before the article was created. Restoring a ~~redirect~~ to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Colorado#Temples will have the same effect as draftification (the expanded article created by @Happyrain2121 remains in the article history, ready to be revived once sufficient sourcing is available) while allowing us to avoid a rather talmudic debate about the purposes of draftspace. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate everyone for taking the time to give feedback on this article.

With all that was mentioned, it seems like the main concern is whether the article meets the general notability guidelines. To align with that, I’ve added several independent sources that demonstrate the consistent coverage of the Grand Junction Temple—not just quick mentions or announcements, and removed the source that is marked as generally not reliable in Wikipedia. I’ve also made some updates to the article itself based on the comments given earlier, including neutralizing the tone, adjusting the language that might have come across as promotional, and improving the source formatting.

Before we wrap up the discussion, I am hoping that you could take another look at the current version of the article. I put in a good amount of effort to find additional independent sources to directly address the concerns mentioned. For example, I added two sources from Western Slope Now, a local news outlet—one from late 2022 and another from April 2025. The fact that they are published in different years and not church-affiliated, shows that this isn’t just a one-time mention.

Regarding church-published sources like Church News, I’ve used them to support basic and factual information. I find that it’s generally consistent with the guidance given in WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Sources, and it aligns with how similar articles use them. If there’s anything that still stands out to be insufficient, I’m more than happy to rework it. Happyrain2121 (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the newly added references?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Newly added independent sources show a WP:GNG pass, even before completion. As noted above, LDS temples are almost always notable so it's no surprise that sufficient coverage was found, even pre-completion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:49, 11 June 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