Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity
![]() | Points of interest related to Christianity on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
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.

watch |
Christianity
edit- Antony John Baptist (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 to meet Wp:GNG and Wp:ANYBIO. No secondary coverage. Zuck28 (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Religion, Christianity, India, and Tamil Nadu. Zuck28 (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. I found two reviews of Thus Spoke the Bible: Basics of Biblical Narratives [1] [2] and one review of Unsung Melodies from Margins [3]. Could pass WP:NAUTHOR if anyone else has better luck finding a few more reviews. MCE89 (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep – With respect, I believe this article meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements under several established guidelines:
- Under WP:GNG, there is significant, independent coverage of Antony John Baptist in reliable secondary sources. This is more than routine or passing mentions.
- According to WP:AUTHOR, authors are presumed notable if their works have received multiple independent reviews. Thus Spoke the Bible: Basics of Biblical Narratives and Unsung Melodies from Margins have indeed been reviewed in reliable publications, which supports this standard.
- WP:ANYBIO also provides that individuals with significant coverage in independent sources merit a standalone article. As both a priest and published author with reviewed works, Antony John Baptist fits within this scope.
- The sources demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, offering in-depth treatment rather than trivial mentions.
In light of these points, I suggest that the best course is to improve the article with the available references rather than delete it. The subject clearly meets the threshold set by Wikipedia’s own guidelines, and keeping the page would align with policy.
— Alephjamie (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Kindly provide the " multiple independent reviews" and "significant, independent coverage of Antony John Baptist in reliable secondary sources." Zuck28 (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: I searched about the subject and found some book reviews of their works, which I believe are sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR. In addition, I also came across some good articles on Google Scholar, and the authority databases are also giving positive signals. You can see the book reviews here, here, and here. Thanks to MCE89 as well for providing some reviews. Baqi:) (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly passes WP:NAUTHOR based on the sources provided in the discussion above.4meter4 (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep – Per Baqi sources. Again, I don't know what the scope of Catholicism is in India, but the sources are perfectly adequate for an article. Svartner (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR since has published multiple books that received solid coverage in reviews.Gedaali (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: As I have long done for such a WP:BLP, I won't consider new sources until they are added to the article. Bearian (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ian M. Duguid (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)
Lack of Wp:SIGCOV in Wp:RS, fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. The references are minimal and non-independent. Such content violates WP:NOTPROMO, turning Wikipedia into a free promotional tool for academics. Also, the article's title is misspelt, I don't understand whether deliberately or by mistake. Zuck28 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Religion, Christianity, and United Kingdom. Zuck28 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Well, his first book is notable [4] [5], haven't checked the rest. Article is not promotional imo PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: The article title will need to be moved after this discussion closes to address the misspelling, but Duguid passes WP:NAUTHOR with multiple reviews for his books Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel ([6], [7], [8]) and The Song of Songs ([9], [10]), as well as many independent journal reviews for his co-edited series the ESV Expository Commentary. I expect he passes WP:NACADEMIC as well as a leading Reformed biblical scholar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per the sources identified by Dclemens1971. Passes WP:NAUTHOR. Move to Iain M. Duguid.4meter4 (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Per Dclemens1971. Gedaali (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep as passes WP:NAUTHOR with multiple reliable sources reviews of his works as identified in this discussion by Dclemons so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep - the GS data suggests a WP:PROF pass for the field. StAnselm (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep – Notable as an established Christian author (WP:AUTHOR) and professor (WP:PROF), per evidence provided here. Alephjamie (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sebastian Mullooparampil (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 article does not demonstrate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of the references are affiliated publications, without the depth required to satisfy GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: As per the nomination. Poor to unreliable primary sources are used to create a promotional article for a non-notable subject. Zuck28 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Poor sources and the degree of significance of the subject and of role as Indian priest and professor, is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Joy Philip Kakkanattu (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 article does not demonstrate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of the references are affiliated publications, without the depth required to satisfy GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: As per the nomination. No SIGCOV in secondary WP:RS. Zuck28 (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Paulachan Kochappilly (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 article does not demonstrate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of the references are affiliated publications, without the depth required to satisfy GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Lack of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Don't see any evidence of passing WP:GNG or an SNG like WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails to meet notability due to lack of significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- List of Ordinaries of the Personal Ordinariates (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:NLIST for lack of sources that discuss the ordinaries of the various Anglican-rite Catholic ordinariates as a group. In contesting a PROD, A. B. said this passes NLIST since all the entries are bluelinked, but there is no evidence that sources have covered these individually notable bishops/priests as a group. (They are already listed at the pages for the individual ordinariates.) I did a BEFORE search but happy to be proven wrong if anyone can turn up sourcing to demonstrate an NLIST pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Christianity. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment:
there is no evidence that sources have covered these individually notable bishops/priests as a group.
It is a common misconception that this is required for a list. What WP:LIST says is that "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources..." However, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists..." Jahaza (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2025 (UTC) - Delete I see it as not needed duplication since they are all already in a list at the pages for the individual ordinariates. Rolluik (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- St Benedict Patron of Europe Association (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 seeing any standalone notability for this organization per WP:NORG. References are to its own website ([11], [12]), WP:PRIMARYSOURCE documents from the Vatican ([13], [14], [15]), and official Catholic Church directory listings). I didn't find any other qualifying independent WP:SIGCOV per WP:ORGCRIT in my BEFORE search. Open to a merger of encyclopedic content to another page but not sure where the content would be WP:DUE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Italy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: A quick search found no additional material on this organization. If the subject passed NORG or GNG, it would typically have coverage in independent Catholic media, but that is absent here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is that French Catholic media is mostly paywalled. For example, we can see from this post[16] that Cardinal Sarah's greeting to the group in 2017 was published by L'Homme nouveau, but they don't have an accessible online archive. There are also some references to the French name of the group in Google books, but they're mostly all still in copyright and not accessible. Jahaza (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: A weak vote from me as a new-ish editor, but with no COI, I'm not Roman Catholic. This association is a French-Italian-Polish organisation, judging from the board of directors, and in French there is a lot of additional sources. I have added 2 French sources, one from the Dicastery for Laity, the other from Radio chrétienne francophone - and I could have added more. The Dicastery is (yet) another Curia department, so arguably still WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, but it is a mass participation body and I would say high profile, and operates under its own steam. That first link also has a lot of suitable extra material to improve the article in question here, which I / anyone can update if the consensus is to retain. The RCF link - that is an independent radio station, within a pro-Christian mindset. It is part funded by some Catholic stakeholders. The link is of an radio interview with the French president of the Association, some extracts are on the web page, more in the embedded media. There isn't much more there to support the article, but what I thought was pertinent was that when the radio station wanted to talk about St. Benedict and Europe, this was the person to whom they turned. She then went on to bash the late French President Chirac for apparently trying to downplay the Christian heritage of modern Europe, I have no idea about that, but it does indicate that Mme. Chapon had a particular message to push out, connected with her job with the Association. But yes, this Wiki article isn't a good one, it is poorly written, badly sourced, can be improved. I think traditional Wiki sourcing isn't picking this up too well since it operates in multiple languages, mostly not English, and uses multiple translations of the Association's name, rather than sticking to one version. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- The French link to the Dicastery for Laity is just the French version of the English directory listing already in the article and discussed in my nomination. The RCF content is an interview with the CEO about Saint Benedict, not WP:SIGCOV of the association, and it's not independent coverage at any rate since it's an WP:INTERVIEW. I don't see how either of these sources gets us any closer to WP:NORG here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- The point I was perhaps not clear about was that on the RCF web page, not the interview, the RCF journalist states - in summary - that after St. Benedict was awarded the title, some clerics wanted to respond to the proclamation by creating the association. So this is a statement on RCF's page and I take that as a Secondary source (WP:SECONDARY), separate and independent of the WP:MAINSOURCE. In addition there is a bit of NORG by dint of what the Association's president was doing, in a public forum, and why she said it - I accept it's not direct to the article. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- The passage you describe is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, not SIGCOV of the organization. It shows it exists but not much more. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- The point I was perhaps not clear about was that on the RCF web page, not the interview, the RCF journalist states - in summary - that after St. Benedict was awarded the title, some clerics wanted to respond to the proclamation by creating the association. So this is a statement on RCF's page and I take that as a Secondary source (WP:SECONDARY), separate and independent of the WP:MAINSOURCE. In addition there is a bit of NORG by dint of what the Association's president was doing, in a public forum, and why she said it - I accept it's not direct to the article. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- The French link to the Dicastery for Laity is just the French version of the English directory listing already in the article and discussed in my nomination. The RCF content is an interview with the CEO about Saint Benedict, not WP:SIGCOV of the association, and it's not independent coverage at any rate since it's an WP:INTERVIEW. I don't see how either of these sources gets us any closer to WP:NORG here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: The ASBPE is an international association of the faithful and there is only a very limited number of them, all registered by Vatican, which makes it notable. (Terot (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)) — Note to closing admin: Terot (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DClemens1971 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)--Jahaza (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Can you point to the Wikipedia policy/guideline that says Vatican-registered associations of the faithful are automatically notable? I am unfamiliar with this supposed presumption of notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Selective merge and redirect to Association of the Christian faithful section "Examples". I don't think it is notable enough for a separate article but it seems possible someone searches Wikipedia for information on it. Rolluik (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- If there are too many associations mentioned, a list could probably exist. Rolluik (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- There is a list, here: Directory of International Associations of the Faithful. (Terot (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC))
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more feedback on possible merge/redirect targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to Directory of International Associations of the Faithful, lacks notability. Fram (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Scott Cormode (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)
No indication of encyclopedic notability for this academic administrator. BD2412 T 00:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Religion, and California. BD2412 T 00:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete agreed with proposer, does not meet any notability requirements. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, fails all notability requirements. My own WP:BEFORE did not provide any useful sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Patre23 (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Being the editor of the Journal of Religious Leadership is probably not enough for WP:PROF criterion 8. Being the Hugh De Pree Professor of Leadership Development might be enough to meet criterion 5. He's published a few books, but they don't seem to have been widely reviewed (this was the only journal review I could find of either, but I may have missed some). Josh Milburn (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. There are also a few interviews, for instance [17] and [18]. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep while his books haven't been reviewed a lot, his work does seem to be cited quite a bit and I think it's reasonable to say he passes WP:NACADEMIC 5. I found two additional journal reviews of one of his books other than the one Josh Milburn found, as well as a review of a book chapter and a journal article talking about the impact of some of his work. Jahaza (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Between what I said above and what Jahaza has found, I think there's enough here. The article has been slightly improved, including incorporating some of the sources identified above. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:HEY. Passes WP:NAUTHOR per the reviews added to the article and listed here.4meter4 (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep NPROF #5 is met by his named chair, and Fuller is no minor fringe seminary. Jclemens (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement among participants on whether or not this article subject can pass WP:NPROF or WP:HEY.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Faith Theological Seminary, Manakala (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:ORG and no presence of independent sources. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nominator.Thilsebatti (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Christianity. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - I don't see any independent sources. Bearian (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Poor to unreliable sources. Fails GNG.Zuck28 (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)- Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. This independent academic book published by Brill Publishers describes the school as "one of the premier theological education institutions in India" on page 100. There's also coverage in this book, published by Edinburgh University Press, and in this journal, and [this book. There's a bunch more in google books and google scholar.4meter4 (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- 4meter4, can you elaborate on how this passes SIGCOV? The first book you linked appears to have one page of coverage (on p. 180). Ross-2019 p. 151–152 has one paragraph. George-2013 is available from WP:TWL, and has one paragraph on p. S-188. I did not search books or scholar myself, but can you list two or three sources that have book or chapter-length coverage, or a journal article in which it is the main subject? From what I can see so far, there isn't significant coverage in even one independent source. Mathglot (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sure. In this case we have encyclopedic claims about the institution in reliable source. If we have independent sources saying this is a significant school, even if it is not lengthy, those claims to my mind are strong evidence of notability. It's not the length here of the text but the actual statements about the school indicating this is an encyclopedic topic. One of the sources states it was the first Pentecostal seminary to gain university accreditation in India, and the first to offer master and doctoral level degrees, and for that reason, a large percentage of Pentecostal academics in Christian theology in India are graduates of the school. Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I would like to withdraw this nomination based on new findings by 4meter4 as per WP:HEY . However since there is already two deletion votes, I'm leaving the closure upto the admins or any other editors in good standing. Thanks. Thilsebatti (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources identified by 4meter4 which together show that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per 4meter4's sourcing. This will need an admin closure, despite the nom being convinced, as the two delete's have not revised their !votes. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I would like to take back my comment. Zuck28 (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I struck it for you. See the Help:Cheatsheet on how to strike comments. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Christ the King College (La Union) (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, for most of this article history the only source was from the school website's history page Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: It's pretty unusual for a secondary school that's over 100 years old not to have sufficient coverage for a WP:GNG pass. I'm not seeing it myself but perhaps someone adept at sourcing/archives in the Philippines would know places to look? Perhaps coverage is available in other languages? Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'd be the first to say that "if you can't find English sources about a topic from the Philippines, you won't find Tagalog ones", but that's mostly on Tagalog language-speaking areas. This seems to be Ilocano language, and I'm not entirely sure if offline sources may exist and if someone wants to dig it up at some library. Some Catholic schools in the Philippines are indeed very old, so this is nothing out of the ordinary. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This technically qualifies for a soft deletion, but comments here suggest it would benefit from a more careful review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Weak Keep or Draftify- Indeed SIGCOV or notable sources seems virtually zero at least on usual websearches, no obvious hits from Google News eiter, the closest I could scrounge up so far is this, which seems from the local government in that region. Redirecting to the founding Groups seems not sensible either given their context. Not opposed to draftify if any SIGCOV can be gathered for us to check. Lorraine Crane (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Catholic universities and colleges in the Philippines for now. I suspect that foreign language or offline sources exist that contain WP:SIGCOV. However, until an editor with access to those sources chooses to work in this area we can't leave an article that is essentially sourced to non-independent primary materials.4meter4 (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect seems an appropriate ATD if this fails verification. It's a shame, really, as this is a nice little article on the college--just lacking sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Categories for discussion
edit- Christian religious leaders: further follow-up required, see Category talk:Religious leaders#Clergy categories