Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitterne United Reformed Church


 * 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 Delete. Carlossuarez46 21:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Bitterne United Reformed Church

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This convo has been copied from the talk page:

WP:N states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This church is referred to in a wide range of local history books and other resources. The article just happens to be a stub, and no editor has yet been able to expand the content and add the references in question - but, after all, that's what stubs are all about! Waggers 08:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't assert this notability. It just says it is a church.  To at least get by the Speedy Delete criteria, the stub has to at least say why it's notable.  --UsaSatsui 15:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Montchav 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This nomination was incomplete. I completed it.  --UsaSatsui 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

*Keep for now...don't you feel you're jumping the gun? Yes, I posted that, I speedy-tagged it, but his comment implies he can assert notability. Give the guy a chance to get some notability into it. --UsaSatsui 19:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Jumping the gun? The article was created in March.  Corvus cornix 17:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete current version. If the editor comes back with something to show that this church is notable, then I will revisit this discussion, but as it now stands, there's no there there.  BTW, there are only 21 Google hits if you remove wikipedia and its mirrors.  Corvus cornix 20:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of notability.  I'm not really a fan of wait till notability is established approach Corpx 05:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 16:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. He had his chance.  --UsaSatsui 16:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, churches are not above the requirement to establish notability beyond a local interest through reliable sources. Nuttah68 19:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:N doesn't require a claim to fame, it only requires that "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  This is one such source - I just need to find the book in the library again and add the necessary references.  The fact that I have yet to do this does not mean the subject is not notable - WP:N says notability is not temporary, and there's no mention of time restrictions in Wikipedia policy.  The references will be added in due course; the fact that they're not there yet bears no relevance to the subject's notability. Waggers 12:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the article doesn't assert notability. Yes, it is presumed to be notable if it's  been written about.  However, things still have to be notable for a reason, and you need to state that.  For example, George W. Bush has had many, many articles about him...but if the article just says "George W. Bush is a man who is the son of George H. W. Bush", it should be deleted, because it's not claiming why the man is notable.  To get past the basic criteria, the article needs to state why this church deserves mention. --UsaSatsui 19:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.