Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communion of Christ the Redeemer

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 02:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Communion of Christ the Redeemer

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:NCHURCH; I found nothing on this denomination, and the page has had no reference added in 14 years of existence.
The very few mentions of it on Google Books are mostly from non-WP:RS, and all Google Books sources mention this denomination in Wikipedia:Passing mention. There is no mention of this denomination on the 2009 Melton's encyclopedia of American religions either.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (at most) - The website appears to show four (possibly five) congregations (called dioceses) in US, which may well meet for worship. It is a splinter of the American episcopal church and claims to be in communion with Anglican Province of America, another much larger splinter (with two US dioceses and 116 congregations worldwide). This is another case where local church ministers have been declared to be bishops. This has to be near the limits of notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: when no secondary RS talks about an organisation, said organisation does not match the WP:NOTABILITY criteria at all, whatever the number of dioceses and parishes their website may claim. Veverve (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gutting the article diff just before nomination has been called disruptive as it removes information that could be useful for source searching. It's not a BLP so retention of uncontroversial unreferenced material for a week or two is not damaging in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No secondary sources as indicated by the nom. The topic fails WP:N. Jerm (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent reliable sources and the two external links are archived web sites dating back to 2007. Generally speaking if sources are this scarce, and this old, the subject fails WP:GNG. Blue Riband► 09:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I could find no secondary sources that would make this organisation pass GNG or NORG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2022 (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.