Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity

Shortcuts

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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Christianity[edit]

Bon Air Baptist Church[edit]

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

Has remained exclusively sourced to primary sources for over six months despite a tag. A quick BEFORE search yielded no information beyond non-independent or non-reliable mentions. Looks like a local church without notability. Potential as a merge is minimal, as content is all primary and fails NPOV. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Virginia. Pbritti (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES; other searching turns up only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Oti-Boateng[edit]

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

Non-notable religious preacher. One reference broken, other to self. Orphan. Can't see why it would pass notability test. Seaweed (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per several source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia Lutheran Church (Swedish denomination)[edit]

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

Protestant denomination with one congregation and just 20 members. A cursory Google search doesn't turn up anything of note. Graham (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Sweden. Graham (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't meet the Wikipedia Notability guidelines, not enough coverage. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Internet search does not yield results that would qualify as WP:SIGCOV; this fails WP:GNG. Prof.PMarini (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

God Sent Me[edit]

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

A self-published autobiography about Selman v. Cobb County School District, with no substantial coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Law, Education, Christianity, and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Skeptical Inquirer review is sigcov, so it's untrue that there's none, but if that's it then it would fail notability. It needs at least two. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: There's a review in The Atlanta Jewish Times on pg. 34 of this issue. This would normally be enough, but there's an interview with the author directly above the review, so I don't think this would be independent enough to count towards NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, a very weak keep. Without knowing more about that organization's processes, the independence may be up in the air, but they look like a reputable newspaper and strictly speaking I don't think interviewing the author is a sure sign that it's non independent, they could have simply sought it out. But yeah I won't die on this hill PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Jacobs, Michael (2016-10-21). "Time for a Disclaimer". The Atlanta Jewish Times. Vol. 91, no. 41. Retrieved 2024-07-01 – via Issuu.
  I consider the review to be independent of the subject as it contains negative content. The review notes: "Selman's book is exhaustive and exhausting in its details on the struggle against the sticker, especially in the extensive use of court testimony. Even if he's right, however, Selman is hardly an objective source. His book is not, and does not pretend to be, a dispassionate history. As he says repeatedly, he wants to wake up Americans to the threat of theocracy, but he risks putting some readers to sleep by emphasizing advocacy over information. Still, Selman has created, if not a textbook, an invaluable resource for anyone who wants a reminder that science and religion can coexist, but not in the same classroom."
2. Branch, Glenn (September–October 2015). "A Textbook Case in Georgia Remembered" (PDF). Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 39, no. 5. pp. 59–60. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
  The review notes: "Selman also understates the role of Kitzmiller v. Dover in forcing the school board to settle. ... God Sent Me is self-published, and the lack of a firm editorial hand is intermittently detectable. Generally following a straight chronological narrative, Selman’s writing is serviceable and often engaging, although there are occasional patches of purple prose: for example at one point he writes, somewhat ridiculously, “The life I was living was in a comfortable but contaminated Petri dish where the leprosy of theocracy was threatening to break out and become epidemic” (17). Fans of Leo Rosten will be amused by Selman’s pervasive use of expressions from Yiddish, accompanied by helpful glosses, although “farblondjet” is oddly spelled as “fablunjet” (175). There is no index and no bibliography, and references appear variously in footnotes and in running text, which is mildly frustrating."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow God Sent Me: A Textbook Case on Evolution vs. Creation to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh[edit]

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

Opening this deletion discussion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE on the talk page (here). Would love to hear editors' thoughts going forward. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would urge anyone who comments in this discussion to look on the talk page from (one of) the subjects of the article. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is too notable to delete. Maryam Rostampour is arguably notable as well, despite the fact that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is the only one of the two with continuing coverage. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Christianity, Islam, Iran, and Georgia (U.S. state). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh exists as a draft. Assuming that both women are notable, perhaps Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh could be added to article space after any necessary improvements are made, and this article could be moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller (her current name), thereby preserving the edit history. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If agreement is that there is enough information to split, I think this is a good idea. Otherwise, I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh's name be removed from this article per request and this article moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller per your suggestion. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split I think it is reasonable to have this specific article deleted. However, I would be open to the thought of having a separate article for Maryam Rostampour if she is notable enough. Marziyeh Amirizadeh on the surface level appears to be a notable figure (I have not done much research into her life though), so I would be more comfortable with having a separate article for her. ❤History Theorist❤ 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A person claiming to be one of the subjects of the article requested that it be deleted because they don't want to be associated with the other person? The title is probably inappropriate and would be more appropriate as something else but this does appear to be a notable event. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the editor claiming to be the subject says on the talk page that she paid $300 to have her Wikipedia article written. Is this the current draft, created by an editor who has edited no other topic? PamD 22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)[edit]

Categories for discussion[edit]

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

Miscellaneous[edit]