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

Magdala Moravian Church

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NBUILDING, not indication of why the building is notable. Doesn't make any claims regarding notable architecture either fr33k man 13:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Nicaragua. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edits have been made to help address the concerns mentioned. Nhtpaf (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chapra Christ Church

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

Lots of broken links on the page, I can't find much to replace them and can't WP:V the details JMWt (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and India. JMWt (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Kindly see the references prior to tag of deletion. Further this is a premium heritage institution of the district almost 185 years old and has separate commonsCategory which also made the article notable Pinakpani (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 2: three sentences about churches in Chapra, none of which are obviously this one (the origin date of the Roman Catholic church mentioned is different to that one the page)

Ref 3: my browser says not to open as the link is dangerous

Ref 4: is not obviously about this church and doesn't verify the contents of this page

Ref 5: a parliamentary mention about the Church Mission Society which is a British church society and not obviously anything to do with German Protestants or Roman Catholics

Ref 6: doesn't work for me

Ref 7: about the King Edward School and Chapra Protestant church. Not a Roman Catholic church

Ref 8: doesn't work for me

Conclusion none of these refs WP:V the content on the page. It's not clear whether any of them are about the subject or not JMWt (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Social media sites are what I can pull up... Nothing in Gnews, other than stories about conversions/mission work. I don't see this meets notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - since at least some of the citations don't match the subject, either the creator made serious mistakes, or the sources were generated by AI. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian Old Catholic Church

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

This micro-denomination fails WP:GNG for lack of WP:SIGCOV in any independent, reliable, secondary source. Sources are limited to:

Public-sector database listings (they prove it exists, but not much else): [1], [2].
The organization's own website or affiliated webpages, Facebook pages, etc.: [3], [4], [5].
WP:TRIVIALMENTION on another Facebook page and on a random blog: [6], [7]
Two permanently dead links: [8], [9]

A WP:BEFORE search turns up no coverage in unaffiliated sources. The website doesn't say how many congregations this denomination has, but its website lists only three priests, one deacon, and one bishop so I'm guessing it's tiny and thus not likely to be covered under WP:RELIGIONOUTCOMES (Religions, religious denominations and sects are almost always treated as presumptively notable and kept provided there is reliable source evidence of their existence and they represent more than a handful of affiliated congregations or places of worship.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Bulgaria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is limited to self-published and primary sources. No significant, independent secondary sources found to establish notability under WP:GNG. Yolandagonzales (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at this page and the church's own website, I don't see any indication of where they have any congregations, or any verification that they do have any congregations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paurastya Vidyapitham

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

Does not have enough secondary references to merit an article. Fails notability. - The9Man ^Talk 06:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^Talk 06:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Christianity, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Degree granting seminary/graduate institution are presumptively notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. That's been watered down lately, but no BEFORE has been articulated and the nomination rationale runs counter to NEXIST, so I'm not convinced. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saint John the Baptist Elementary School, Pittston

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

The page does not have any reliable sources that significantly cover it. There are some YouTube videos about it, but those are not reliable and likely not secondary. Using Google news, you can find some news articles that show up. However, these articles only cover people who are associated with the school and not the school itself, thereby failing WP:SIGCOV. The school has closed, so this isn't likely to change in the future. Easternsahara (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources:
- Area Parochial School Crunch Appeal To Bishop: Keep Schools Open St. John The Baptist And St. Mary’s Are Set To Close. Scores Turn Out To Protest (2004)[10]
- "Exclusive: Catholic teachers offer plan: Union group wants to prevent layoffs that might result from diocese reorganization study." (2006)[11]
- "Court dismisses petition to keep school open" (2004)[12]
- The Sisters of the I.H.M.[13]

This history is actually mentioned in Pittston, Pennsylvania with a "citation needed" flag, so a merge to Pittston, Pennsylvania#Education probably makes sense. 21:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Merge selectively as suggested. Bearian (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Ascension of Christ in Warsaw

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

No evidence of notability, either in this article or the original in Polish. JohnMizuki (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble searching in Polish, but it's an architecturally distinctive modern church - I'd be surprised if there's nothing on it beyond what's in the Polish article. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 28 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!} 23:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of the Holy Eucharist

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

Doesn't seem to have any really independent sources, indicating a lack of notability.

First source: "The Knights paid a modest amount for the writing and promotion of this article"
Second source", journalist: "In addition to working with the Knights of the Holy Eucharist (knights.org)[...]"
Third source is informing that the bishop (head of the diocese) is working with the Knight

and so on, a mixture of seemingly unreliable partisan sources (Catholic Online), non-independent sources (EWTN), contact information, ...

This seems to be a local organisation of just 12 people in 2016[14], not some large organization spread across the US or multiple countries. Fram (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Nebraska. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Most of the Catholic media would of course have an association with the org discussed here, but I'd still consider them independent, as they have editorial control over what they publish. Otherwise, I didn't find anything (sourcing seems to be only in religious/Catholic media). Oaktree b (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But even within the Catholic media, which ones do you consider to have reliable, notable, independent coverage of this group? First three sources at least don't qualify, which ones do? Most seem to be from the diocese of Lincoln, which is the diocese working together with the Knights (see source 3). Fram (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable (only 12 members are in the order), but with the caveat that Roman Catholic media is actually fairly reliable. Bearian (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many of them are, e.g the Lincoln diocese one is reliable, just not independent in this case: but I only called out Catholic Online which seems to be some fringe outlet (feel free to correct me) Fram (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Baptist School (Portland, Maine)

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

Kept at AFD in 2008; apparently largely on the then-held basis that all schools are notable. Tagged as unsourced since 2018 and appears to have been generally unsourced since creation aside from linking to the school's website. This is not really significant coverage. There are other such brief descriptions in the newspapers.com archives of the Evening Express, most of which are mainly drawn from interviews with the school's administration. Some minor coverage in this book but I don't think we can base an article meeting WP:NORG for a nonprofict private school based on brief annual newspaper announcements stating that the school had opened for the year and two brief passages in a book stating that the school had strict rules about hairstyles and that a "Let's get rowdy" cheer chant had been suppressed. The 2008 AFD included a reference to sources existing but none were produced. Hog Farm _Talk 05:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Christianity, and Maine. Hog Farm _Talk 05:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first nomination was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Baptist School; in 2013, a few years after that nomination, it was determined that there was no primary topic for "Grace Baptist School", such that this article was renamed and Grace Baptist SchoolGrace Baptist School has pointed to Grace Baptist (then a dab page but now an article) ever since. (I note this for completeness; I have no opinion on the article or its sourcing, potential or otherwise.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found 5 news articles related to the school's history, but did not find any sources describing its closure. I thin it's worth keeping as a record of an institution that served the community. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not quite convinced with the sources there. The first is not independent, the second is about the church and only briefly mentions the school, the third is a brief statement that two teachers from the school attended a curriculum screening, and then the remaining three are short pieces without bylines from the local paper, two of which appear to be primarily just restating what the administrator of the school said. If there were an article on the church I think this would be an obvious case for a merger, but there isn't. Hog Farm _Talk 16:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus Christi Catholic Church, Wokingham

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

Not seeing any independent WP:SIGCOV leading to a WP:GNG pass for this local Catholic parish church. Sources in the article include non-independent sites (parish webpage, parish newsletter, schooll webpage, the diocesan website [15], [16]), the WP:UGC GenUKI (see [Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_298#Royalcruft_again]); WP:PRIMARYSOURCE directory pages ([17], [18]); and a WP:TRIVIALMENTION ([19]. A WP:BEFORE search turns up many more directory listings and trivial mentions (example) but nothing we can work with for notability. Open to a redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth but bringing it to AfD for that consensus since a draftification was contested with the addition of non-qualifying sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a run-of-the-mill parish. I wouldn't redirect to the diocese as there is no list of parishes. Mangoe (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep Many of the other churches in the diocese have a Wikipedia page, so I believe that it's only fair that this one does. There might not be too many references because it isn't a huge parish, but many other churches' Wikipedia pages have even worse referencing, it it is difficult to find relevant sources. But I believe that the sources are not biased and it does not compromise the quality of the article. Eterin (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- it's not a valid argument to retain a page. If it's difficult to find sourcing for this topic then we should not keep it as a standalone mainspace page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 18:08, 28 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!} 23:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Delete - a classic SYNTH: throwing together a few isolated sources into an essay. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Theology of the Body: as a plausible search sequence for the proposed target. Eliminates the WP:OR and WP:NOESSAY problems in this article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I think is also a suitable thing to do and I did happen upon the article expecting it to be about JPII's ToB and not an essay about an historical grabbag of sources. M.A.Spinn (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 14:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it seems to me that the proper question here is whether there are RS discussing the history of a theology of the body as framed on the page and outwith/beyond a specific address by Pope J-P 2. The answer to that is clearly yes, this source and this source and probably others. Not everything has to be framed as the thing that !delete !votes want.

That said, for goodness sake don't do references on a page like that. References are to assist the reader, layout like that hurts my soul. It's not necessary, it's not clever or helpful. JMWt (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still, this would be a WP:TNT case. The article is not a history of Christian attitudes toward the human body (to which the term "theology of the body" does not properly refer); it's an essay about how random Church Fathers anticipate the author's interpretation of John Paul II. I absolutely agree however that an article giving an encyclopedic history of Christian views on the body would be a very good idea and someone should write it. Those sources you mentioned look excellent and I would also add The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity by Peter Brown. M.A.Spinn (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Theology of the Body. As stated by Dclemens1971, that would be a likely search sequence for those interested in the topic. Catholic theology on the body is chock full of WP:OR and has various other problems, so I think a redirect is the best option in this case.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:24, 2 July 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: [20]. 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list article recommended by Dclemens1971. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow for further discussion and participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find primary sources [21] or brief mentions [22]. Doesn't seem to be listed in the NRHP either. Oaktree b (talk) 12:09, 30 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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity

Christianity

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Categories for discussion

Miscellaneous