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

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]

Saints Peter and Paul Church (Chernivtsi)

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

the references of the article are mostly generated using ChatGPT. Vinizex94🌍 01:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Vinizex94🌍 01:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and possibly a speedy delete under {{db-g7}}, as the creating editor has brought the article to AfD. Article was created using unchecked LLM output (see [1]) so content cannot be trusted to be accurate. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 14:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is essentially the nom asking to revert a move from userspace to main space, and I support the revert given the content concerns. Suriname0 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it appears that ChatGPT has got confused and pulled some info from here. It is correct that Josef Hlávka was the architect but it incorrectly put the church as Greek Catholic instead of Armenian Catholic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unreliable AI creation, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

God's Revelation to the Human Heart

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

Current sources appears to be passing mentions and bookstore descriptions. Both does not count towards WP:GNG, which does not appear to be fulfilled. A WP:BEFORE search also returned no results outside of passing mentions. Nothing in Newspapers.com about the book either.

The book exists, but there is almost no coverage of it by reliable sources outside of passing mentions. Proposing a redirect to the author. Pinging Myckaa, Moriwen for involvement with the failed PROD. Justi yaya 08:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, United States of America, and Alaska. Justi yaya 08:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Seraphim Rose: No standalone notability for this book. The review by Roosh Valizadeh appears on an WP:SPS blog ([2]) and the article in Religion (which is by Lackenby, not Gallaher as stated here) is not a review but a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION. (Works by the English theologian and bishop Kallistos Ware (such as The Inner Kingdom) and the American monk Seraphim Rose (such as his God's Revelation to the Human Heart) are amongst those which periodically come up in conversations.) The book exists, though, so no reason not to redirect the title to the article about its notable author. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:21, 5 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]

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]

Simon Barrow

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

This article has been around for 15 years and does not indicate how the subject is notable. I suggest redirecting the article to Ekklesia (think tank). ... discospinster _talk 21:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 21:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Christianity, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I'd just delete; I don't see any case for notability here. (This is also a case where a bold WP:BLAR could have saved the community some time in discussion.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was a bit of a mess, with material added more recently about a different person of the same name. I have tried tidying it up a bit and have added a bibliography section with three citations. I will try to do more soon. Bondegezou (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty more to do to improve the article, but I believe I've improved it compared to when it was nominated, providing more evidence of notability and more citations. Editors may still feel it warrants deletion, but I suggest they look at the article in its new state. Bondegezou (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Looks like a bare pass of WP:NAUTHOR based on reviews. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article has been significantly improved since nomination and includes reliable sources book reviews that show a pass of WP:NAUTHOR so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Baptist Temple Academy

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

Found during WP:JUN25; I cannot find substantive coverage of this smallish private Christian academy that would suggests it meets WP:GNG, WP:NONPROFIT, or WP:NSCHOOLS. Hog Farm _Talk 01:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Texas. Hog Farm _Talk 01:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - School is too small for its own article. failing WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched newspapers.com, but found only a few brief articles on sports achievements by individual students, and mentions in some obituaries, but no extended coverage of the school. It is listed on the American Association of Christian Schools, but that does not amount to significant coverage either.

— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:16, 8 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]

Andrew Wilson (author, pastor)

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

Non-notable biography with no coverage in independent sources that fails NAUTHOR. Most coverage is primary and awards do not arise to the significance of ANYBIO. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and England. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Weakly squeaks by on WP:AUTHOR I think. I've added reviews of his books to the article, not all of his books are even listed yet or all of the reviews. Article should probably be moved to "Andrew Wilson (pastor)" rather than using a double disambiguator. Jahaza (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Christianity.com article[3] appears to be an independent source. The site is owned by Salem Media Group. Jahaza (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the additional references addeed to the article including multiple reviews of his works in reliable sources so that WP:NAUTHOR is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree he meets WP:AUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This author meets WP:NAUTHOR. His books reviewed by many reviewers such as John Watkins. CresiaBilli (talk) 07:20, 7 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