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:

1. 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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity/archive

Anne Paulk (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)

She is only discussed in reliable sources for her role as the leader of Restored Hope Network, and a little bit less so for the fact that she had married John Paulk. Badbluebus (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Sexuality and gender, Christianity, and United States of America. Badbluebus (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Restored Hope Network: Per nomination and as AtD. I don't see a GNG pass for a standalone article here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Church in Korea (BokUm) (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 refs on the page for many years and I am unable to WP:V the basic details as they appear on the page. It's entirely possible that these can be verified in non-English sources but I'm not able to find them. JMWt (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and South Korea. JMWt (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• fwiw, it appears that there was a previous AfD as part of many bundled pages about Korean churches. That ended as NC see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korea Jesus Presbyterian Church JMWt (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find any sources covering this church to a significant degree. Cortador (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Presbyterianism in South Korea: The page creator had a track record of creating articles on every single obscure reformed denomination regardless of notability before his block, often using highly unreliable sources. In this case, while the page is unsourced, the subject does appear in brief mention in the standard reference work by Bauswein and Vischer. So, this denomination exists (or did at one point). But I can't find any WP:SIGCOV, in English anyway, beyond a capsule description in Bauswein and Vischer, so I think a redirect is an appropriate AtD that preserves the page history should a future editor find WP:V sources to restore the article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Altadena Community 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)

As was the case with St. Mark's Episcopal Church, this is a local church with no notability outside of its association with a single event; as such, I don't believe that the reporting on this church's destruction will be enough to support an article in the long term. Sources 3–13, 15, 16, and 18 are purely local articles of WP:ROTM events at the church that provide no notability at all. If the argument were to be made that these sources provide WP:SIGCOV, then nearly every church in the US may as well be notable. Source 1 is an NYT article that mentions the church. Source 2 is an article from a religious organization that reports exclusively on matters that concern its churches and as such cannot be considered an independent source. Source 14 is an LA Times article about the congregations resilience, 17 is a Time article which is basically the same thing, 19 is a Deseret article reporting that the church burned down, while 20 and 21 are similar. The community can decide if these sources are enough to provide long-term notability. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Eaton Fire#Stuctures destroyed: While I think the coverage in the New York Times and LA Times represents sufficient WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources, I also think the WP:NOPAGE test of WP:GNG is not met since this is clearly a WP:1E situation. As a result, I recommend redirecting to the list of structures destroyed by the Eaton fire. This will preserve the page history should additional SIGCOV unrelated to the fire emerge for a GNG pass as a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KPBJ (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. Only FCC database information; no secondary sources.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason as above:

• KBAL-FM
• KBRI (AM)
• KBYO (AM)
• KCLR (AM)
• KDLA (AM)
• KENA (AM)
• KHZK
• KJAL
• KLBW
• KLWJ
• KPBB
• KPBE
• KPBM
• KPCQ
• KPVA-LP
• KQGC
• KRMY
• KSHY-LP
• KUOL (Texas)
• KWTM
• KZPI
• WAGE (FM)
• WAKK (AM)
• WCLC (AM)
• WCMR-FM
• WDUF
• WDXL
• WELB
• WERH (AM)
• WFWO
• WGAT
• WHPF
• WJEH (AM)
• WJOS (AM) (no sources)
• WJPI
• WJXP
• WKJQ (AM)
• WKVG (AM)
• WLMS (FM)
• WMLC
• WMUP
• WNBN
• WOOW
• WPPT (AM)
• WPVH
• WQST (AM)
• WRAR (AM)
• WSEM
• WULA
• WVBS
• WYAH-LP
• WZCT
• WZZG Chuterix (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Christianity, and Texas. Chuterix (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I suspect this bundled nomination will get bogged down by featuring both five-ten year stations only ever operated in this century, most of which never should have had articles (and only did because of the too-low inclusion standards of pre-2021 in this topic area), and 75-year stations that simply have no real current content. The only unifying factor is being "minimally-at-best-sourced articles on defunct radio stations", which is not necessarily a one-sized-fits-all circumstance. A 54-article nomination under any circumstance is also likely to be a trainwreck. (At most, only KPBB, KPBE, and KPBM should be bundled with KPBJ specifically as all four appear to be short-lived Paulino Bernal stations that were part of a network. KCLR (AM) also ended its existence in this network, but had a considerably longer history before that.) While a wider culling of undersourced if not unsourceable permastubs in this topic area is long overdue (and again, has been since that 2021 media notability RfC), this should be done over only a few (e.g. five-ten) non-bundled nominations at a time over many weeks, not all at once. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All from this WP:MASSNOM - First, AfD tags need to be added to all the articles nominated, save for KPBJ. Second, there are way too many noms here to evaluate for sources. Third, in going through one entry at random, (WJOS (AM)), I've found a reliable source (see this) which cites other reliable, offline sources. So, at the very least, WJOS should be kept, and I have a feeling more sources can be dug up for some other stations nominated. But there are just too many noms made all at once to be thoroughly considered. schetm (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep. Too many nominations to consider carefully. The first one I spot checked, KPCQ had secondary sources, albeit probably not enough to keep it, but it shows that the nomination claim of "no secondary sources" is not correct. Jahaza (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep There are articles that should be deleted here. But I learned my lesson after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K04QR-D. There are stations here that look like DYK targets with the right paper as they clearly have lengthy operating histories. There are also stations that look ready to fail the GNG and get deleted by snow. But that should not be done in ill-advised bundles. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 01:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devil in the arts and popular culture (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)

It's questionable as to whether we need such an article at all, but even if we do, I'd suggest WP:STARTOVER. Skyerise (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don’t see a problem here. Why should the article be deleted? ScrabbleTiles (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Popular culture. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Questionable" isn't a deletion rationale and the article quality is not low enough for WP:TNT. Astaire (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology, Religion, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Spirituality, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Stubify and rename. The nomination is bad and hardly explains the reasons this article is bad, but it is bad. Outside the first few sentences of lead, which have academic refs and establish WP:GNG (the topic is obviously notable, incidentally, I just wrote yesterday an article about a book whose introduction is another relevant source if someone wants to work on this) the article is a mess that IMHO fails WP:IPC/WP:TRIVIA/WP:NOTTVTROPES (i.e. the usual random list of works featuring devil), and at the end has a bizarre 'legal' section discussing some mentions of devil and stanism in court. My recommendation is to gut it down to a stub and rename by removing the pointless "the arts" (the arts are part of popculture anway). Ping folks who do good rewrites of this topic: User:TompaDompa, User:Uncle G... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This did catch my eye when it was listed. Alas, I currently have almost all of the counties in Indiana open in browser tabs; and am in the middle of several sources dealing with Chilton County, Alabama. I tried to escape the never ending geography a while back, but that soon led to Kierkegaard, which can drain anyone's religious subjects fuel reserves for quite a while. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I turned it into a stub, as suggested. That should be much more conducive to turning this into a decent article than the previous state it was in was. I daresay I won't find the time to get it up to standards myself anytime soon, however. TompaDompa (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nomination does not seem sensible to me. The article isn't very good but certainly depictions of the devil in culture is a notable topic.★Trekker (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Either sent this to WP:COPYEDITORS or other similiar projects. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as being obviously notable and not being explosion-worthy. As noted above, AfD is not for cleanup. Bearian (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : the subject is very notable. Gauravs 51 (talk)
• Keep. There might be some room for rename but that can be discussed elsewhere. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Obviously the article needs a lot of work but the subject is very notable. I can think of several depictions of the devil in literature, music and art. If a lesser demon such as Mephistopheles has its own page on art and culture influence, why shouldn't the devil have one as well? It certainly isn't for a lack of material. Also as the previous users have mentioned, the article itself doesn't break any of Wikipedia's rules NeoGaze (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but probably rename (no strong opinions on what the new title should be). WP:Notability does not seem to be seriously disputed here, and I would think most of the major issues that existed when the article was nominated have been resolved by reducing it to a stub. I can see an argument that what remains could equally well be covered at the main Devil article; if the article is not significantly expanded in the near future (I do not anticipate finding the time to do so myself), a merge discussion might be in order. TompaDompa (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh (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)

Please see the message on my talk page requesting deletion. Previous rationale for no consensus was that the subject(s) of this article wished the page to be split and not deleted; I think that the current comment on my talk page makes it clear that deletion is an option per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. GnocchiFan (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Christianity, Iran, and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, the requirements for us to keep this article seem to be either proving greater-than-marginal notability or forming a clear consensus against deletion. While I can see the case for marginality regarding Rostampour, Amirizadeh's later activities suggest more significant and sustained notability. Not !voting right now, as the policy here is a tad contradictory with other policies (that's not a bad thing, as this allows us to address competing interests). ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and a complex !vote. Like Pbritti I am a bit conflicted on the best outcome. In the last AfD I supported a merge to Evin Prison since I don't believe either is individually notable. (I guess I should have followed Owen's instructions to do a bold merge but I confess I didn't have it on my watchlist so didn't notice the close.) I think the best case would be to delete this page per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, since the case for the notability of these individuals as a pair is marginal, and redirect Marziyeh Amirizadeh, which currently redirects here, to Evin Prison to preserve the possibility of expansion of an article on the apparently more notable of the two. Since there is currently no redirect at Maryam Rostampour, this addresses the BLPREQUESTDELETE issue. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  PS I have added the AfD header template to the article page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  An alternative option, to preserve the page history, would be for any page mover to move this page to Marziyeh Amirizadeh without leaving a redirect, then redirect that title to Evin Prison. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear Voters, Thank you for considering our concerns regarding the shared Wikipedia page. At this time, I (Maryam) do not wish to have a separate Wikipedia page. I am open to either deleting the page or removing my name so that Ms. Amirizadeh, who appears to be more notable and eligible for a Wikipedia page, can use the article as her personal page. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions. We greatly appreciate all your efforts in assisting us. MrostampourKeller (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sweden Yearly Meeting (via WP:PROD on 6 November 2024)

• Christian religious leaders: further follow-up required, see Category talk:Religious leaders#Clergy categories