Edge Rewrite
translate Source code View original
Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch

Christianity

[edit]

Raffles Christian School

[edit]


Raffles Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unrefed; unclear how it meets WP:NSCHOOL - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 06:38, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Fellowship of Christian Airline Personnel

[edit]


Fellowship of Christian Airline Personnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not finding any secondary WP:SIGCOV of this organisation. It likely fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. If more sources are found, please ping me. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 07:03, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

P.S. I've buffed it up a bit with local coverage. I was suprised that there was more than one aviation ministry, just as there multiple seafarer ministries of different scales. BOI is not a major aviation hub, much less an international airport, and this is its chapel, run by an organization with chapels the world over. kencf0618 (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

St. Xavier's PU College, Gulbarga

[edit]


St. Xavier's PU College, Gulbarga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

St. John Neumann, Bryn Mawr

[edit]


St. John Neumann, Bryn Mawr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose redirecting to List of churches in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. This is a seemingly WP:RUNOFTHEMILL Catholic parish where the article fails to establish any historical significance or notability, and the article in addition does not cite any sources. Red0ctober22 (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

St. John the Baptist Roman Catholic Church, Manayunk

[edit]


St. John the Baptist Roman Catholic Church, Manayunk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose redirecting to List of churches in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. This appears to be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL church that lacks official historical designation, significance, and I believe overall fails WP:GNG. Red0ctober22 (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep, don't redirect. According to this article, the monumental church, dating from 1894 with a significant architect is not on the historic register only because the Archdiocese didn't want to limit its options. There are several sources in the article which fulfill the WP:GNG. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
How exactly do you believe the sources fulfill WP:GNG? The design of this church by Patrick Keely is certainly something of significance, though I would note that not all of the churches designed have their own article, so just because it was designed by him, that's not necessarily an automatic indicator of notability. Red0ctober22 (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Holy Family Catholic Church (Philadelphia)

[edit]


Holy Family Catholic Church (Philadelphia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose redirecting to List of churches in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. This appears to be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL church that lacks official historical designation, significance, and I believe overall fails WP:GNG. Significance and notability of this church has been proven, and I now no longer wish to see this article redirected. Instead, I am very concerned about the actual article itself, as it is extremely lacking in content and poorly written. Since this is an article older than 90 days, I am now seeking consensus to move to draftspace. Red0ctober22 (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Pennsylvania. Red0ctober22 (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep according to this source here the church is a legally protected building so not run of the mill in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    Thank you for providing that source. I have typically been withdrawing these AfD nominations once I see proof of official historical significance, but this article in particular is extremely poor and lacking in content. This church is significant, but I do not believe this article itself can remain in its present form as a live Wikipedia article. I would wish to change this discussion to a proposal to move to draftspace. Red0ctober22 (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep per https://www.phila.gov/media/20220713111124/234-240-Hermitage-St-nomination.pdf. No reason to dratify.Djflem (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    I no longer dispute the significance of the church itself that it deserves an article. I am arguing that the current state of the article itself is inadequate for Wikipedia standards and thus should be moved to draft space until it can be improved. Red0ctober22 (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    Please see Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, which I imagine also applies to articles for redirect.Djflem (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep per the discussion above. I don't if anyone else noticed, but the nominator went through and tagged at least seven articles for deletion or redirection. Not sure this was the most effective way to get these articles improved. --evrik (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    Seven in one swoop also strikes me a lot since clearly a proper Wikipedia:BEFORE has not been conducted here, making it dubious that it has been done elsewhere. I agree, regulating them to draft space serves no purpose in this case and likely in others. Sources for these historical, and historic, buildings and their congregations and communities are out there if one is willing to scratch behind the surface. Seven noms at once add a burden to respond to all, while one by one gives editors a chance to do some investigative work.Djflem (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    My main objective is simply to ensure the notability and historical significance of these churches. The reality is all of these articles are in extremely poor shape, which is simply an unfortunate reality for a topic like this that doesn't have a lot of people maintaining it. And at the same time, almost none of these actually prove within the article that these churches are notable. However, there have been several of the many AfDs I have proposed already where people respond with outside sources that prove the historical significance of the church in question, and once that happens, I go ahead and withdraw the nomination and the discussion ends. Examples of that have been at Saint Anne Church or St. Francis de Sales Roman Catholic Church. In this specific case, based on the source that Atlantic306 provided earlier in this discussion, I would normally go ahead and close this as withdrawn/speedy keep. However, I find the state of this article in particular to be so egregiously bad compared to others that I simply do not see how this can stand as-is as a live Wikipedia article, so I instead changed to proposing draftifying. The notability and significance is there, but the article isn't in my view. I certainly hope to one day get around to improving all of these articles, but I have a bit of a backlog. Red0ctober22 (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)reply

St. Josaphat Roman Catholic Church in Philadelphia

[edit]


St. Josaphat Roman Catholic Church in Philadelphia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose redirecting to List of churches in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. This appears to be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL church that lacks official historical designation, significance, and I believe overall fails WP:GNG. Red0ctober22 (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I P Mission School

[edit]


I P Mission School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NSCHOOL. Coderzombie (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Keep Historical school and heritage building. There are references elsewhere (not added in article). , So there is a chance to expand it further.
Nizil (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
None of them are WP:SIGCOV and hence, don't count towards WP:GNG.
Comment : Originally I nominated the article because the burden for WP:NSCHOOL has gone up after the change. However, the historical nature of the school/building might make it less inclined to delete. Still lacks SIGCOV, but I'd wait for larger consensus. Coderzombie (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Saint George Tower, Hilandar

[edit]


Saint George Tower, Hilandar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging this article with Albanian Tower, as they seem to be duplicates, if not POV forks. As far as I can see, they are both about the structure in Hilandar Monastery on Mount Athos in Greece, although Albanian Tower's coordinates are incorrect. I have no opinion on which should remain - I picked this one to start the AfD on since it was created a day after Albanian Tower.

Also pinging User:Palatinosunriser, User:Cplakidas, User:Arberian2444, User:Hilandarion, and User:7&6=thirteen since they are the major contributors to these two articles. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Totally oppose, it's not the same monastery, per kasta.eu Saint George Tower, Hilandar is one monastery while the "Albanian" Tower is another --Palatinosunriser (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    I see, my mistake. Is there a reason Albanian Tower says "also known as ... Saint George Tower"? Are there two places named Saint George Tower at Hilandar Monastery? Iiii I I I (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    I checked the article and I see edit warring and removal of sourced content. My conclusion is "Albanian Tower" is an incorrect, fabricated name coined by Albanian nationalists. The towers at Hilandar do not bear ethnic or nation names. The names are about saints or people (George, Sava, Milutin). In reality, this structure is not a tower but a pillar (pirg in Serbian). It is a fact that a person of Albanian origin, John Kastrioti, donated it in 15th century to the Serbian Orthodox monastery. The correct name for this structure is the Saint George Pillar; however, to avoid ambiguity, I recommend renaming Albanian Tower to John's Saint George Pillar. See ref [1][2] [3]
    • Androudis, Pascal (2000-01-01). "Ερειπωμένος βυζαντινός πύργος στο Άγιον Όρος - Ruined Byzantine tower on Mount Athos". Μακεδονικά (in Greek). 32: 355–363. doi:10.12681/makedonika.176. ISSN 2241-2018.
    • Androudis, Pascal (2010). "Three early shallow-butressed towers of the monastery of Chilandar, on Mount Athos" (PDF). p. 247.
    • Androudis, Pascal (2002). "Ιστορικές και αρχαιολογικές μαρτυρίες για τον «Πύργο του Αλβανού» της Μονής Χελανδαρίου στο Άγιον Όρος - Historical and archaeological evidence for the "Albanian Tower" of the Chelandari Monastery on Mount Athos". Byzantiaka. 22 (1): 217–246.
    Palatinosunriser (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Avoid ambiguities - Rename Albanian Tower to John's Saint George Pillar : Per sources the most reasonable option to avoid ambiguities--Palatinosunriser (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose Read the 2 articles. One is a tower on the defensive wall of the monastery, while the other is a ruined structure outside the walls. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose I agree with Ktrimi these are two different structures.Arberian2444 talk 05:19, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

First Baptist Church (Portland, Maine)

[edit]


First Baptist Church (Portland, Maine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be an article about a congregation that originally established notability because it gathered at a historically notable building, listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1978. The historically notable building has since been demolished and the listing removed from the NRHP. It's a bit of an interesting situation because I could see justification of an article about the NRHP building for historical significance and still keep info about the congregation in passing, but I'm bringing it up for discussion because there isn't much in the NRHP listing besides architecture and searching for sources is difficult because there are a lot of churches that use this name. Sesamehoneytart 05:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment I have updated the page to reflect the historically significant building as the subject. Sesamehoneytart 07:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I reverted your well-meaning edit because you should not make major edits to an article while it is under discussion.--User:Namiba 14:37, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Per WP:EDITAFD, "editors are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period, for example to address the points raised during the discussion. If your edits are significant, you can add a note in the discussion." There's a couple of caveats like blanking and redirecting, but I believe my edit reflects consensus so far. Is there a conflicting policy I'm not aware of? Sesamehoneytart 20:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
No, I was not aware of that policy. I was commenting from my past experience. Changing the focus of the article feels to me like too much of a change. If you want to use the sources I've provided to add on to the existing article, then I think that is within the scope of the EDITAFD. Removing the photo of the existing building and so on feels like a dramatic change that would cause more confusion. Given what I provided, do you agree that it now passes WP:GNG?--User:Namiba 11:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I used the sources you provided when I updated the article yesterday, thank you. This article was originally established based on the notability of the building with the same name as the organization. Since passing into the mainspace, the subject of the article and infobox contents have shifted to feature the organization rather than the building. I quoted this below too, but WP:NRELORG says:

The fact that a religious building is listed on a major historic register such as the ... National Register of Historic Places ... does not necessarily mean that the religious organization that owns or meets in the building is notable.

I think an article about the building is justified, but don't yet have an opinion on the notability of the organization with the same name as the building because I've been unable to access some of the listed sources without paying $75 on newspaper.com. I think these sources have good potential, so if you can provide links or clippings for the 9/24/1905 Portland Sunday Telegram and the 12/6/1924 Evening Express that would really help out. Otherwise, I'll need some time to figure out if Wikipedia has a way to access these archives. I don't think any of the three hyperlinked sources above can be used to establish notability for the /organization/: The Youtube video is a primary source. The other two are focused on the architecture of the building, and both only mention the congregation in the final sentence, mentioning relocation when the building was demolished. Sesamehoneytart 17:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, you can access newspapers.com and more via https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/. Whether the 200-year old congregation is notable or not (it obviously is based on the sources provided), you should withdraw this AFD. A fairly extensive article on both the building and the congregation can be written, easily passing WP:GNG.--User:Namiba 20:02, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Notability of the building has been established, and related information about its occupants over time is appropriate if relevant, but I think it's important to establish the building as the subject. For instance, at the moment, the infobox should feature an image of the building, and not an image of another building the congregation later moved to since its notability has not been established. I'm not against establishing notability for the organization; however, the news articles suggested above to establish notability of the *organization* do not pass the "reliable" bullet point of WP:GNG. The wikipedia library newspaper archive only has Portland Sunday Telegram and Sunday Press Herald published between 1947-1950. Proquest only goes back to 1995. Unless you can provide a link or some way that these articles can be fact-checked, the 9/24/1905 Portland Sunday Telegram and the 12/6/1924 Evening Express are not currently verifiable. Sesamehoneytart 09:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
You should look more closely at the resources in the Wikipedia Library. Newspapers.com is where I found the newspaper articles. Moreover, you should follow WP:BEFORE nominating articles for deletion. You do not seem to have done that very well in this case and others I've noticed.--User:Namiba 15:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep. Notability is not temporary, and the demolition of the former church building doesn't change its notability. It's common practice to cover the history of both a congregation and its building(s) in articles like this, so I don't think refocusing the article or adding sources that discuss both is a problem. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 20:35, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    My concern is that this is currently an article about an organization that is using the historical value of a building that they used to be in to justify notability of the organization. Per WP:NRELORG, "The fact that a religious building is listed on a major historic register such as the National Heritage List for England or the National Register of Historic Places in the U.S. does not necessarily mean that the religious organization that owns or meets in the building is notable." Sesamehoneytart 05:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Auxilium Convent School

[edit]


Auxilium Convent School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. The sources are primary or directories. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

St. Augustine's School (Kalimpong)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
St. Augustine's School (Kalimpong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Only source is its own website. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

St. William Parish (Lawncrest)

[edit]


St. William Parish (Lawncrest) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose redirecting to List of churches in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. This appears to be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL church that lacks official historical designation, significance, and I believe overall fails WP:GNG. Red0ctober22 (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

St. Adalbert in Philadelphia

[edit]


St. Adalbert in Philadelphia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose redirecting to List of churches in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. This appears to be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL church that lacks official historical designation, significance, and I believe overall fails WP:GNG. Red0ctober22 (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Saint Philomena's Church (Lansdowne, Pennsylvania)

[edit]


Saint Philomena's Church (Lansdowne, Pennsylvania) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose redirecting to List of churches in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. This appears to be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL church that lacks official historical designation, significance, and I believe overall fails WP:GNG. Red0ctober22 (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Howard Dayton

[edit]


Howard Dayton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Request for additional citations has been up since December, nothing has been added or found since then. A quick look at Google News and JStor reveals nothing immediately, and there also looks like there is a COI issue within the edit history here. Even if this subject can become notable, which seems unlikely, it should be entirely recreated due to the COI issues. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: If you wanna do a WP:HEY save, more power to you, but Dave Ramsey claiming anything is not a benefit to your arguement, as most of what comes out of his mouth is complete and utter garbage. Foxtrot620 (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Asansol Christian Cemetery

[edit]


Asansol Christian Cemetery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Other than ETV Bharat talking about this, can't find more. Other references point to christian orgs websites and a report cited mentions that there is a new cemetary opened in Asansol. Not more than that. Wikipicked (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:59, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Delete per nom. The first citation () is fully reliable and significant, though after searching it on Google, there seems to be no other sources for it. One source is not enough for it to be retained. Babin Mew (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Jesus in the Baháʼí Faith

[edit]


Jesus in the Baháʼí Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The author has acknowledged at WP:AINB#User:ABehjat that they used an LLM to generate the prose in this article. Rather than unilaterally draftify this as a NOLLM violation, I thought given the evident effort in its creation it would be better to let the community decide whether to delete/draftify this as a NOLLM violation or whether to WP:IAR and keep it, as we have done with other LLM generated articles like Shit flow diagram and Malacca dilemma. Athanelar (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

*I say it should stay. If you look at the draft history, there were human eyes on it. For example, see . And this policy is very new, and, as you say: "given the evident effort in its creation" I would say it is not the 'bad' usage of LLMs, but a good one, rechecked and checked again, with human eyes. Smkolins (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Neutral - Purely on notability grounds, it can stay. I wouldn't call it a well written article. Sourcing needs work. I don't like the idea of LLM generated articles that need lots of cleanup. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:30, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Draftify. As unfortunate as it is that this editor wasn't aware of WP:NOLLM (which I'm using as an example to push for a front and center notification/agreement for new editors), the amount of effort put into something isn't justification for ignoring guidelines. Someone could put lots of work into self promotion or a full on hoax too, and we wouldn't excuse that. I do think it's appropriate to draftify it and let them re-work and re-submit it, rather than just wiping everything as we would if it was pure slop. Once a reviewer is confident that any artifacts from LLM have been rectified it can return to mainspace, but without knowing when or if that might happen I'm not comfortable leaving it live in the current form.
ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I dont know what Athanelar meant by "evident effort". I take it up as language that conveys human eyes read and re-read the article and rechecked things several times. I'm not saying it's perfect. I sympathize with Cuñado about some of the sourcing, but isn't it a matter of principle here that all articles can and should be improved? I see people complaining about how much work there is to clean up the slop of hallucinations. Sure. But has anyone seen a hallucination in this? I didnt. I want more sources to expand the depth of the article. Smkolins (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I was about to draftify this lol Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC)reply
[edit]


International Link of Orthodox Christian Scouts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary sources only, nothing in my BEFORE, not seeing how this meets WP:NORG or broader WP:GNG Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 11:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Temple milestones (LDS Church)

[edit]


Temple milestones (LDS Church) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP:BLAR so bringing a proposal to redirect to List of temples (LDS Church). This page is a clear WP:CONTENTFORK of List of temples (LDS Church), with the addition of a couple of columns in the table that could, if editorial consensus allowed, be added to the table at the proposed target. (I personally think the list violates WP:NOTTRIVIA and appears to be a work of original research since I don't see an independent source that compiles all this data in a single place, but inclusion of content on another page is an editorial discussion for that page.) This page, meanwhile, is simply a fork of another similar topic and per WP:NOPAGE should not exist as a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Per my response on my talk page:
This was part of Comparison of temples (LDS Church) before the page got too large to show in full, and the primary trigger to why the page was split. These tables are not new, but the location is. Feel free to let me know if there's a better way to show this information.
The final table wasn't fully shown on the old page due to memory size issue which is why the page triggered a split, creating this page as a result. That has fixed the issue.
The content of the tables is nearly 100 percent pulled from a standard template that is used by multiple pages to fill in information. The template content used in infoboxes, tables, and other content across various pages. The content could probably be better referenced within the various temple templates as the content is unable to be individually referenced within the page. The presentation and purpose of the content is not the same in each list.
List of temples (LDS Church) is limited to only show latest milestones, excluds past rededications, and only allows comparing temples in the same status section, by that status milestone, while this one compares all temples by any milestone. Likewise, it shows limited sortable size characteristics and not other info that the other table in Comparison of temples (LDS Church) provide. List of temples (LDS Church) has a different purpose and was never meant to be a replacement of what these tables provide and vice versa.
If it needs to remerge, it needs to be remerged into Comparison of temples (LDS Church) and not List of temples (LDS Church). The memory size issue will also need to be addressed before merging. If it needs to be retitled "comparison of temple milestones (LDS church) or if you have any other suggestion, let me know.
-Thanks. Dmm1169 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I can't imagine that Comparison of temples (LDS Church) is appropriate as a page either (it seems to be a pile of OR and trivia and to violate WP:NOTDATABASE). Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply
If not a page, what would you suggest? What space outside of mainspace will be most appropriate?
While not referenced, information is verifiable. However, WP:NOTDATABASE does clarify that even verifiable information does not mean suitable content for Wikipedia. The question is it suitable or notable for wikipedia standards.
There's pages that compare religious structures size, height, architectural content, etc. The information is pertinent to the architectural aspects and when significant milestones was reached for each structure.
Even though this page has been on Wikipedia mainspace for about 20 years, used and edited by several users over that time, I do not know of any "grandfather clause" that would allow any page to stay if it's deemed to fall short of the standard. In all that time, there seems to have been no challenge to the notability for this page under any grounds, and it may be more reason for it to be challenged to get a full discussion.
- Thanks. Dmm1169 (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Discussion in 2009 for the parent page, which is now titled "Comparison of temples (LDS Church)" per WP:CONCISE, had a resulting consensus of Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Per discussion, these two lists were two different types of lists. Merging would effectively make the "list" page a "comparison" page. See Template:LDS Temple/ for different extant lists of temples. - Thanks. Dmm1169 (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Right, but now the temple milestones page is a fork of either of these lists. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Ok. Remerge into Comparison of temples (LDS Church)? If remerged, any suggestion on how to handle the memory issue? I reduced the number of columns on the first table which allows more to be shown (geographic comparison better compared in geographic comparison page), but the memory issue still prohibits all templates to be viewed if recombined.
As for the "fork" issue, I'm not understanding "fork" issue. The scope is not the same. But even if it was, where does it contradict (which would cause violation)? The source data is the same - it automatically changes with the source. There's links to edit the source, but it can't be changed within the page (which would cause conflict).
This page was created without discussion via bold split WP:PROSPLIT because of display issues due to size already prohibiting content to be seen (see WP:INCLUDELIMIT). However, I did unintentionally failed to perform item 4 in step 5 which I'll rectify. - Thanks. Dmm1169 (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Dclemens1971 Please explain how this is classified as unacceptable content fork for either page. I'm not seeing this which is why I asked. - Thanks. Dmm1169 (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think the WP:CONTENTFORK issue is quite clear:
  • List of temples (LDS Church) has a table listing the temples' operating status; floor and site areas; dedication date; and dedicating official.
  • Comparison of temples (LDS Church) has a table listing the temples' operating status; floor and site areas; building height; numbers of baptistries, endowment rooms, and sealing rooms; architectural style; designer; and whether there is a visitor center.
  • Temple milestones (LDS Church) has a table listing the temples' operating status; date of announcement; announcing official; date of groundbreaking; groundbreaking official; date of open house; dedication date; dedicating official; and current president.
There is also List of temples by geographic region (LDS Church) and List of temples in the United States (LDS Church). But as to the redirection discussion, I simply cannot believe that three separate lists (each of which requires separate maintenance to remain accurate) are required to document this information, much of which overlaps and much of which is trivia. What is the navigational purpose of being able to sort temples by the date they held an open house or whether they have a visitor center? Have you supplied any source independent from the LDS Church that covers this information as required per WP:NLIST? Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Dclemens1971, In definition, it's clarly stated "Transclusions are not content forks." Most information on this page is transclusions. Outside an occasional temple announcement, causing a need for an extra template reference, there's minimal updating needed for this page. Outside of adding a row for each new announcement everything else is updated automatically. If an announced temple has a groundbreaking, open house, dedication or a new temple president is called, the information is automatically updated. Infoboxes, list pages, etc. uses the same source data. This makes conflicts practically an impossibility which is what would make it a negative WP:CONTENTFORK. The way the data is sourced makes it easy to maintain current info over multiple pages. This page focus on milestones. If information needs to be updated/changed, it could simply be done via the "edit" link found next to each temple name, and the edit will effect all pages using that field.
I'm not sure how it violates WP:NOPAGE, it was formed by WP:PROSPLIT. I brought this split to your attention prior to you posting "articles for deletion". This content already on main space for years on a page already determined to meet notability requirements. This table content is no longer on the previous page because it was a split. Outside of temple identification, List of temples (LDS Church) duplicates only one field out of the tables in this page.
Per the referencing issue, there's a separate banner and I've created a comment section and I've added some referencing on my own in effort to address this issue. The referencing issue is within the template and effects ALL pages using these temple templates. Some data are referenced in other fields in the template as that field can't support text. While I wish editors would add more, there are a number independent sources listed within this page (Salt Lake Tribune, various local media, etc).
You seem to have an issue with WP:NOTTRIVIA with certain column(s) in various pages, and not this page as a whole. As shown in its title, the focus of the page is temple milestones which reflects most columns which is why I chose this wording (the tables and columns headers are the same as it was before the move). These are significant milestone events with these event significance explained in the page. You seem to have an issue with a particular column(s) in and outside this page. This can be addressed in the respective page's Talk page as even if there's an issue to that column, it does not disqualify the page as a whole.
- Thanks. Dmm1169 (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]


Categories for discussion

[edit]

Miscellaneous

[edit]
  1. ↑ Holy Monastery Hilandar quote:As John Castriot and his sons purchased adelphates securing their rights to retire and reside in the monastery, the Hilandar Saint George Tower, became known as the "Albanian Tower" in their honor. Upon retiring and taking monastic vows, they joined the Hilandar brotherhood and spent there the rest of their life.
  2. ↑ "Пирг Светог Ђорђа, Арбанашки пирг - St. George's Tower, Arbanasi Tower". www.hilandar.info. Retrieved 2026-07-04.
  3. ↑ Androudis 2010, p. 291, the so-called "Albanian Tower".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Christianity&oldid=1369164288"