Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presbyterian Church in Korea (YeJangHapBo)

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Church in Korea (YeJangHapBo)

[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)

I don't want to individually nominate every page in [[Category:Presbyterian denominations in South Korea]], even though none of them seem individually notable. It would flood the AfD log, so consider this a stand-in nomination since there's not really a way to nominate multiple articles at once with Twinkle. DrowssapSMM 01:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and South Korea. DrowssapSMM 01:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete for this specific article, but skeptical of the other deletions. There's not much online that I can find about this branch; here's an article in a major South Korean Christian newspaper that I think is about it: [1]. However, I think it's likely this and other branches are covered in detail in Korean-language academic sources that are behind paywalls or are in print. The Presbyterian Church in South Korea is infamously fractured and is well studied.

The larger branches especially should not be deleted. Here's an article in The Chosun Ilbo about the Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDong) and Presbyterian Church of Korea (TongHap): [2]. Another in Kukmin Ilbo about TongHap: [3].

Tl;dr the deletion proposals I think need to be individually made, with searches in the Korean language. toobigtokale (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the source identified above is about it and the size of the membership suggests there should be more coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 21 March 2024 (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.