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

Catholic theology on the body

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

This article is original research/synthesis through-and-through and has not substantially changed from its original form in 2008, which was previously nominated for deletion and kept on dubious grounds—WP:ILIKEIT, the original author of the article declaring his topic to be kept, and another who unfortunately simply did not understand that the content of the article is original research.

Speaking from my professional qualifications as a Catholic theologian: The term "theology of the body" (not "theology on the body", which appears to be a name a user made up moving the page in 2020 and sounds like bad English at best) refers properly to a series of addresses made by Pope John Paul II. The article identifies a grab bag of Patristic and medieval sources as proponents of a discrete "theology of the body" which they were collectively developing as opposed to being various sources—some of whom were close collaborators, such as Ambrose and Augustine, and some of whom were at odds—who at times spoke of issues that today may be called theological anthropology. The verifiability of the references has been unclear for years as the Talk page reveals.

It may be possible to invoke WP:TNT here—I think it is possible to have an encyclopedic article on the history of Christian views of the human body—but as it is, this is original research, not a history of Christian anthropology. M.A.Spinn (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. M.A.Spinn (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that this title is malformed, and further that I would expect JPII's writings to be the PRIMARYTOPIC here. So, maybe a redirection is in order? Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a separate article for JPII's writings. And of course, the difference is that the JPII article isn't original research and is about a notable topic with a body of secondary literature associated with it whereas the article I have nominated is a case of original research. Deleting and making a redirect to that article or even Christian anthropology may be appropriate. M.A.Spinn (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be some sort of SYNTH at work... The Church has various positions on the human body, but this doesn't seem to be related to that. Most of the opening paragraphs are unsourced, then go on quoting primary texts with sourcing. There's something here, as the Church has discussed the human body and how it should be viewed, but this doesn't seem to cover it. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, starting with the lead, the first sentence is straight up wrong (no one outside of this article says "theology on the body") and furthermore the second sentence "The dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, defined in Pope Pius XII's 1950 apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus, is one of the most recent developments in the Catholic theology of the body" is simply nonsense (even if it were sourced!)—a doctrine happening to involve bodies does not make it "theology of the body." So the article taking a bunch of random sources and insisting they represent a consistent development of a particular doctrine is 100% a WP:SYNTH issue. M.A.Spinn (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centre County Christian Academy

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

Currently unsourced. Found one source in a book (Route 26 Transportation Improvements, Centre County; page 143), but its a passing mention. Otherwise cannot find sources. Roast (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Pennsylvania. Roast (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tiny, private school; article essentially has been unsourced for 18 years. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Patrick Church (Wyandotte)

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

Apparently non-notable parish church in metro Detroit. The only source provided is an official parish history, which is obviously non-independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing usable except a local news piece on its 155th anniversary, which is not enough on its own for a WP:GNG pass as a standalone page. Open to a redirect to List_of_churches_in_the_Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Detroit#South_Region, where it is mentioned, but bringing it to AfD since it has already been draftified and returned to mainspace without improvements, so I didn't think a WP:BLAR was appropriate in that situation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, Christianity, and Michigan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found more in a WP:BEFORE search including sources from 1890: [1]. The book Catholic Churches of Detroit (Godzak, 2004) may not quite be SIGCOV, but there's good mention in Irish in Michigan (Metress & Metress, 2006). I stopped searching there. This absolutely needs better sources, I'm not yet convinced it's a keep but if it's not it's not too far off. SportingFlyer T·C 08:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Evan Longhurst

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

Created by a single-purpose account, with a possible COI or even PE, and they haven't addressed any of these issues at their talk page. I have to admit, however, that the subject does seem to be somewhat notable and worthy of an article, but the COI issues are concerning (to say the least). Another version of this article exists in draftspace at: Draft:Christopher Longhurst, which was rejected twice due to an apparent lack of notability. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and New Zealand. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question - how big a deal is the King's Service Order -- would his KSO make him notable? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It’s quite a low award. Schwede 66 09:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mid-level award; it ranks between CNZM and ONZM, so two rungs below a knighthood. So KSO on its own is not sufficient to confer notability. Paora (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a charity, we can't allow anyone to use our resources for personal gain. The richest guy in the world wants to use that as an excuse to ruin us financially. Bearian (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the author of the article almost certainly the subject or has a close relationship given the ownership of the rights to the portrait and I don't believe the sourcing is SIGCOV. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Keep as there are reliable sources reviews of his albums such as here and biographical sources here, here imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Love Coma. Arguably, he's not notable outside of the band. A few biographical details can be added. Bearian (talk) 14:07, 14 June 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:26, 18 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]
Delete - striking my earlier vote. Agreed that notability is not met. If coverage is sustained, the article can be recreated. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 02:33, 17 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]
Delete per nom. Most viral tiktoks get a burst of attention and then are swiftly forgotten, it's too soon to say if this will have any lasting significance. Imo !merging and/or !redirecting would be undue weight. Zzz plant (talk) 03:29, 14 June 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.

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)[2] State Journal, Charleston
- "Trinity Christian School Breaks Ground on New Wing" (November 2004)[3] Dominion Post
- Residents Question Trinity Christians Impact (August 2004)[4] Dominion Post
- "Trinity Christian opens new campus, transportation issues arise"(April 2005)[5] Dominion Post
- "Trinity Adds Finishing Touches" (August 2005)[6] Dominion Post
- "Trinity for sale to highest bidder: Bank looking to sell bankrupt Christian school" (May 2010) [7], Dominion Post
- "Bank wants to sell bankrupt private school in Morgantown"(May 2010) [8], Charleston Gazette
- "Trinity to keep school: Reaches deal with bank for $5 million" (July 2010) [9] Dominion Post
- "Prep Sports:: Morgantown Christian school getting ready to tackle football" (Jan 2009) [10]" Charleston Daily Mail
- More[11][12][13][14][15][16]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Weak arguments on both sides of the fence here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 17 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Responses to the source analysis from keep !voters would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "source analysis" misses the point to a large extent. It's applying a test for when notability is not asserted.

There are multiple claims of notability within the article, all of them sourced. The "source analysis" misses this out and applies a beauty contest metric, which is only intended when there are no clear claims of notability.

To take one claim, which on its own would justify the article, this is the first scholarly history journal in France. There's no attempt to say this isn't asserted in the article, or that the claim is not notable, or that it's not sourced, or that the source is unreliable. In fact the source is from its only possible rival for the crown of first French scholarly history journal, the Revue historique, a journal with a high incentive to claim otherwise. Although not currently linked if you follow the assertion in the RH's article it quotes the RH's co-founder, Gabriel Monod, who states that RQH is the only French history journal using the new methods up until this point.

But none of that's directly addressed. Instead there's something nice said about the author of the later RH article, nothing about the fact it was in RH, nothing about the claim, nothing about Monod's original acknowledgement - just a secondary discussion about whether this was a major or minor citation!

And there are other claims to notability in the article that are made, such as the prominent role it played - for much of its 80 years - in the late nineteenth century attempted "Catholic reconquista" of French culture. Again not addressed.

Notability isn't primarily a Pokémon hunt for references. That may be needed in a borderline case, and borderline cases naturally cluster in AfDs. But notability is about whether a notability claim is made in the article and it is backed by one or more credible sources.

And on this the article succeeds. Multiple times.

JASpencer (talk) 08:31, 15 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]

Question - would it be possible to consolidate all these articles into one list that meets WP:NLIST? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Suriname0, since it seems like they might have the most precise knowledge of the articles as a group. Spookyaki (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done very little list editing, so NLIST is a bit of a mystery to me. Certainly, non-independent sources discuss the members of the diocese as a group: The Diocese of America and Canada today consists of 19 parishes and two monastic communities in the United States as well as nine parishes and one monastic community in Canada. Total of 28 parishes and 2 monasteries. The Bishop’s seat is in Sterling Heights, Michigan.^[1] There's ambiguity to me around the parishes (which I might call "organizations" or "communities") and the actual church buildings. It seems plausible to me that a semi-independent source exists describing the creation of the American-Canadian diocese and its parishes,^[2] although I don't have one to hand. Editorially, I do think a list would be the best way to include this content on Wikipedia. I will note that at least the bishop's church/cathedral is likely to exist as its own article, as its AfD is trending toward an IAR keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nativity of the Virgin Mary Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral, Sterling Heights, Michigan To the closer: a redirect to Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of America and Canada is a plausible ATD here, if a list article is not created. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "American-Canadian Macedonian Orthodox Diocese". stspeterandpaulmoc.org. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
^ "Macedonian Orthodox Church: American-Canadian Diocese (1967 - Present) - Religious Group". Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA). Retrieved 2025-06-16.

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]
Comment - I thank User:Dclemens1971 for their detective work. I don't know the definition of a "cathedral" in this church, although it does seem to be the "bishop's seat" for the diocese. Related: I mentioned this AfD in the AfD for another church in this diocese, where a discussion was started about potentially creating a list for these articles. So, I am a cross-linking here as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Ilija Macedonian Orthodox Church, Mississauga Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 14:08, 16 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]
Keep. It seems the central point of the argument for deletion revolved around independent sourcing, and the two articles, focused on the temple, both span across multiple years, which meets WP:SIGCOV. This shows enough notability even before the temple will open. HappyRain2121 met the major points addressed, including the tone of the article being too promotional. An article with a "C" grade only needs to cite more than one reliable source (and the article has at least two from that independent source). It seems to already meet the standard of significant coverage, so the page should stay. Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until completion, not just an estimated future date. WP:PROMOTION - This never should have been in main space. As is, this reads like a press release, and should not be in main space. — Maile (talk) 13:28, 16 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

[1] "American-Canadian Macedonian Orthodox Diocese". stspeterandpaulmoc.org. Retrieved 2025-06-16.

[2] "Macedonian Orthodox Church: American-Canadian Diocese (1967 - Present) - Religious Group". Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA). Retrieved 2025-06-16.

[1]

[2]