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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. 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:deletion sorting|Christianity|sig=~~~~}} 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.
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:
Adjunct professor with limited publications. They have a h-index of 4 and no reviews on JSTOR. I don't see anything that would satisfy any of the other criteria for WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. The Finnish article has a few more sources, but nothing that would appear to add to the notability. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 10:21, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to Wulfric of Holme because these articles are about the same person, link to each-other as alternative names on their respective pages, and are both extremely short, Wolfeius being only 4 sentences long. GREEK MYTHOLOGY 123 (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I think this article could have been merged boldly. It never hurts to get consensus, but if it isn't a controversial topic you can just go ahead and merge it yourself. If there is any disagreement, which rarely happens, you could bring it here to resolve that and get outside input. FaviFake (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Agree with above. Srnec (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Wulfric of Holme as proposed as there is no need for two articles on the same person, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge, and that this should have been done boldly. I agree that these is no need for this discussion. Klbrain (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Last AfD was no consensus and I note some of the keep voters cited inherent notability of high schools which is no longer true. Lacking third party coverage to meet NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: AfDs for schools have changed and this school has no coverage from reliable sources. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails in GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. My BEFORE yielded nothing with SIGCOV to warrant standalone notability. Won't mind withdrawing if useful sources are located. BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 05:36, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect. There isn't much to add other than its current page is a stub of Roman Catholic Diocese of Maliana which explains that they have a minor seminary and state when it was opened (26 September 2017). All we can really go on by our sources. No articles or anything that would fulfill WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. But could be used to help with searches. ⌨️ ConstructLoader_talk 19:03, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Another one from an editor who churns out one biography of a non-notable Christian preacher after another. The sourcing here is very thin, consisting only of promo pieces from Charisma, which we cannot rely on for honest journalism or for adding to notability. See history for "sources" I removed, such as IMDB and the subject's own book. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: This is all sponsored content or content regurgitating his Youtube videos. (Charisma magazine has become completely unusable; it's just a big pile of spam and promotion.). Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Non-notable pastor. The sourcing is sub-par, consisting mostly of partisan websites with YouTube videos and things like the notoriously unreliable Nigerian Guardian, and contain, basically, announcements rather than honest reporting or in-depth coverage. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete There are only 2 references (references 1 and 7) that actually go in depth. Reference 2 is promotional and references 3-6 are brief passing mentions. Reference 8 is a video, but after reviewing all the references listed, I conclude that there is a lack of Significant Coverage Russo-winner1234 (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
This page was created by a user whose sole intention was to prove that the first Mass in the Philippines was not celebrated in Limasawa. This otherwise obscure Jesuit is only of interest because of his testimony regarding the first Philippine Mass. As he did not achieve anything notable, I suggest deleting the page. Simon Ellistrand (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Questionable notability for standalone article; Butler has only had a short career in electoral politics and is primarily known as a pastor. 42-BRT (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
The guy was prolific in the 90s and 2000s. It is ridiculous that we keep doing scant checks from present media sourcing and throwing up our hands to excuse wholesale removal of objectively important historical information cause we didn't like that we came across a stub. Like cmon guys, there's a reason why we have WP:BEFORE. You are not supposed to be using deletion as cleanup. The sourcing is scant because it's physical. Just because it's difficult to find doesn't mean that we can discount it entirely. WP:PERMASTUB is not adequate justification for deletion.
Sources likely to exist on newspapers.com, need a check. Curbon7 (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
The article as currently written focuses primarily on his activities in politics (whose sourcing is scant and does not back notability- one article about a losing primary bid for Senate does not make one notable), and on basic, biographical details of his career as a pastor (with no sourcing aside from his VisualCV page and the websites of his church and Senate campaign). I think that given the details in the article as written, it would be reasonable to assume he doesn't meet GNG.
This is why your input is helpful, @CSGinger14. You clearly have knowledge on the subject that I don't. It would be helpful for you to apply that knowledge to develop this article into one that no longer places Butler's notability into question. 42-BRT (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
@Bearian: not all members of Detroit City Council have Wikipedia pages. 42-BRT (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes, but this person has more than the basic coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, and India. Kartheek1025 (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This article does not meet WP:NBIO. Aneirinn (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: The Nominator is blocked
Delete--poorly written, even more poorly verified (with just some local coverage), and I have the feeling we're doing with a paid editor here. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment If the article is not notable , please delete. I am not a paid editor. Yes, I mostly do christen content but you don't get paid for it, not even a penny. Sadly you can't even do what you believe in. (Aimtoaddvalue (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I'm a frequent contributor to Christian articles here. Notability is dependent on whether the Nagaland sources are reliable. I don't think they are, but an analysis of the sources would be very helpful here. Bearian (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment I thought SOCK generated AfDs led to a procedural close?
WP:Speedy keep: if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the nomination should not be speedily closedKisseran (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Some administrators close such AfDs procedurally even if there are Deletes, others don't. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Lean keep - I think that the Morung Express and Nagaland Post coverage is reliable enough to count towards establishing notability; both seem to have WP:USEBYOTHERS, and Nagaland Post seems to be a state-level publication rather than a local-level one (although Nagaland is a relatively small and impoverished state). I take some pause that both the NDTV article and two of the Times Now articles are written by the same author, Tejshree Purandare, who further seems to have trouble maintaining an objective tone, with breathless prose such as In a world coming together to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, FOLJ Church exemplifies the enduring power of faith and community. So I'm ironically less confident about the use of those national-level sources, and I have some doubts about whether the coverage best warrants an article about Sajwan himself, or about the Church or Ministry he founded, but one way or another I think we do cross the line for notability here. signed, Rosguilltalk 14:59, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 17:36, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Rare as it is for me to disagree with Rosguill, in my assessment the Nagaland Post articles are doing nothing more than reproducing things he said in interviews. Pared down to intellectually independent content, none of the sources pass muster in my view. I was unable to find better sources in my own search. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
That's valid, my comments took Bearian's assertion as a starting point for investigating Nagaland Post's reputation more broadly; I did not closely examine the articles cited here. On review, I do agree that it's essentially all attributed statements that don't really add up to independent coverage of Sajwan. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:37, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. In addition to the concerns of intellectual independence, the Nagaland Post articles seem to be AI-generated, being full of WP:AIVOCAB, WP:AIATTR, and other obvious signs. Pangram, which has a very low false-positive rate, assesses everything to be either AI-generated or AI-assisted. These articles are therefore unreliable per WP:RSLLM. Kisseran (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. The sources cited in the page are highly suspect, and I'm unconvinced that they should be considered WP:RS. See WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Digitalfolklorist 19:30, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: A working religious person, very routine. I don't see notability. Nom was a sock, but the article still isn't notable. Reads like a brief CV. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose redirecting to Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Diocese of the USA, Canada and Australia (this local parish church's diocese and where it is mentioned) because this subject does not pass WP:GNG for a standalone page. Sources are non-independent (diocese, press release), a two-sentence historical marker ( -- not WP:SIGCOV, and no evidence it's actually listed on a historic register), or do not mention the subject at all (, , ). Nothing comes up in WP:BEFORE search. Prior draftification was contested so I am bringing this redirect here for community consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 18:01, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Very small party, just one source mentioning the dissolution of the party. Strainu (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Romania. Strainu (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - having won 0.57% of the national vote, it would be a notable party. Article should not be judged on current state of references, but the potential scope of references available. Romanian Political Science Review, vol. XIII, no. 1, 2013 has more detail, enough for a short article. --Soman (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
@Soman can you specify the page where you found the information? From what I could see, the party is barely mentioned once, with no details. Strainu (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
In Partide, voturi şi mandate la alegerile din România (1990-2012) (Parties, Votes and Mandates in Romanian Elections [1990-2012]), multiple mentions. Page 85 has a summary about the history of the party from 1990 to 2012. --Soman (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Its a minor party which hasn't won in any local or national elections i can find. Weichan123 (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Lean keep per Soman. They managed to raise their vote share from 1992-96 year-on-year for a sustained period. I'm sure there's some Romanian news analysis of why that was the case. Might we do a source hunt to make a determination as to that fact?
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep per @Soman. It seems like it just barely makes GNG. Khalitate (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep satisfied by the source cited above and the 70K vote tally in the 1996 parliamentary election. Worth noting, a party of the same name was created in 1920 by A. C. Cuza as a split from the Democratic Nationalist Party which changed its name to the National Christian Defense League in 1923 and in 1935 merged with the National Agrarian Party to form the fascist National-Christian Defense League.
↑Benditer, Yehiel (1991). "The Nuremberg-Inspired Antisemitic Legislation of the Goza-Cuza Government in Romania". In Cohen, Asher; Cochavi, Yehoyakim; Gelber, Yoav (eds.). Dapim: studies on the Shoah. New York: Lang. p.84. ISBN9780820409603.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Citations are the subject's own ministry site, affiliated theology organisations and blogs. Kqol•talk 23:10, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I don't see anything particularly wrong with this article. Bearian (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep As Bearian noted the article seems fairly well rounded. There's a number of academic sources present, more than half of which (having not done a completely comprehensive review) I'd suspect cover the subject in at least 100 words, if not more.
I also don't think it's reasonable to discount a fair number of the additional sources entirely simply because they're Christian organizations. Just because they're also Christian doesn't mean they're affiliated or biased in some manner when discussing the topic, that they can't discuss the individual in a neutral, detached manner (beyond the fact of their implying the existence of a God, which is an unreasonable lens for us to look at this issue from seeing as we're trying to establish notability for a theologian). I think that takes a really narrow and somewhat diminutive view of theology, which isn't really practical at all; obviously the sources covering them are going to be broadly Christianity-focused in nature. Were we hoping for an expose in the Wall Street Journal?
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete did a Google search and I did not find any reliable sources. Catfurball (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - I still don't see anything egregious about this article. It certainly could be improved, but AfD is not an improvement factory. Bearian (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: "I don't see anything wrong" is not much of an argument - which sources justify the inclusion of this article? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:08, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
On second review, the man probably doesn't make GNG, but does have a pretty clear pass vis-a-vis WP:NACADEMIC, given the fact that he's been extensively cited in a wide variety of dissertations as effectively the expert authority on Thomas F. Torrance.
Keep: per Bearian and CSGinger14. Likely meets WP:NACADEMIC. Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 20:19, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final call for an actual source analysis. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 17:35, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at: