Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bromma Parish


 * 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   keep. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 04:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Bromma Parish

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One-liner without sources and no proof of notability The Banner talk 00:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is not WP:ILIKE. Cite a policy that warrants deletion of this historic entity. ChemTerm (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:V, WP:GNG The Banner talk 00:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a parish. Parishes are not generally notable. Individual churches within them may be notable as historic buildings, but not the parish as an organisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKE. Cite a policy that warrants deletion of this historic entity. And especially tell: Why Swedish parishes are not allowed to have their own article in Wikipedia, whilst many others are? ChemTerm (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps those other parishes can proof their notability. It might be a good idea to visit Articles for creation. The Banner talk 00:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They are notable. I noticed them several times. Others did too. If you can't maybe do something else. There is no requirement in WP policies that says: The topics must have been noticed be The Banner. ChemTerm (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are some users with absolute disrespect for I_just_don%27t_like_it. ChemTerm (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks to be you who comes with the "I don't like it arguments". I have only nominated articles from your hand because they had no or otherwise a doubtful claim to notability. The Banner talk</i> 00:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep in a form. There are two kinds of parishes in Sweden: socknar and församlingar. The former are small units of local administration, similar to U.S. townships; the latter are the ecclesiastical sort. The article should describe the administrative parish. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I presume that the parish is a subdivision of the municpality. This was a local administrative unit.  There is no reason why we should not have articles on them, but typically in England we have an article on a village or locality, which may happen to be similar in extent to a civil parish, rather than directly on the parish.  In other words, this article is not just about a church.  The article on Bromma says that it is "primarily made up of the parish with the same name, and the parish of Västerled.  A possible alternative might be to redirect to Bromma.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not an administrative sub-division. It's an ecclesiastical parish - merely the area served by a church or set of churches with no civil administrative functions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not anymore. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * delete This is an article on an ecclesiastical parish, not a civil division as in Louisiana. We have consistently decided that parishes and congregations are not inherently notable, and there's no other claim to fame given. Mangoe (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is (now) about a geographical division, the historic civil parish of Bromma. --Hegvald (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep had this been an article about a similar American subject then we wouldnt have this discussion right now. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but much more USA subjects are supposed to be notable than non-USA subjects. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While I'm still not 100% convinced that this is notable, I can't let this statement stand without comment. No country's subjects are inherently more notable than another's. However, to BabbaQ, I would say rubbish. When created this article was about an ecclesiastical parish. Not only have we previously had AfD discussions about the notability of ecclesiastical parishes in the United States, but we have deleted articles about them (although there are certainly many more that should be deleted). The problem seems to be that some editors, mostly from non-English-speaking countries, are confusing parishes which are civil administrative units (e.g. in England and Louisiana) with parishes that are merely small ecclesiastical sub-divisions and have no civil administrative function. The former can be notable and are often kept, the latter, generally, are not. When created (and when some editors said "delete" on this AfD) this article appeared to be about the current ecclesiastical parish. It has now apparently been expanded into an article about the historical administrative parish. Note however that we do not have articles on English civil parishes, as these are considered too small, and these seem to be a similar size to the Swedish parishes. We do have articles on the villages after which English parishes are named, but we also have articles on the villages after which Swedish parishes are named (e.g. Bromma itself), so this is an identical situation. Parishes in Louisiana are the equivalent of counties and are thus much larger units. All these differences in terminology seem to be creating a little confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not true: Category:Civil parishes in England by county contains a fair number of articles on distinct civil parishes (Hatfield, East Riding of Yorkshire, Aighton, Bailey and Chaigley, and Burgh and Tuttington, to name a few). Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Only applies in the very rare cases of a parish that does not have the same name as a village or town within it. Is that the case here? No, since we do have an article on Bromma. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, have you actually read that article? It's about the modern borough of Stockholm, not any village or town. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of that. Village, town, borough. They're all settlements. Stop splitting hairs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, still not convinced If I follow the hierarchy properly, a Swedish administrative parish is a very small subunit, about on the level of an American city neighborhood or even precinct. I can see some slight possibility of notability for the parent hundred, but I'm not convinced that such a small unit merits an article. Mangoe (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Closer to townships, on which we have plenty of articles. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep pr. Hegvald and L. von Richthofen. Iselilja (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Too small of an admistrative area to qualify for automatic inclusion. Like Mangoe said, this is a lot like an American city ward or neighborhood. Lothar von Richthofen is incorrect in comparing this to an American Township, which has it's own government and by-laws. No evidence of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, so fails to meet any of our notability guidelines. Not notable as an ecclesiastical parish, for that matter, anyway. The anti-Swedish, pro-American angle is simply a strawman argument. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKE - Your edit is disruptive. Cite a policy that mentions the size of a geographic object as criterion for inclusion. ChemTerm (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not accuse another editor of disruptive behaviour for expressing an opinion which they are perfectly entitled to express. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The case of this parish and Sollentuna parish is complicated by the fact that Stockholm has now more or less engulfed them. Fact of the matter is, these parishes were for centuries quite distinct from the city, and so cannot be reasonably called a "neighbourhood" or "city ward". Socknar were distinct units of a number towns and/or villages, with hybrid civil-ecclesiastical administrative functions. That the administration was of a different nature than American government is to be expected, as Sweden has a different legal/governmental history than America—that doesn't mean that there was no local governing function. The historical socknar retain importance to this very day in Swedish linguistic research, toponymy, local/regional history, and archaeology. And somehow I don't think that "city ward" or "neighbourhood" is an adequate descriptor for e.g. sv:Jokkmokks socken (now there's a name for you). Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Request Speedy Closure as Keep, as nominator Due to the work of Mr. Von Richthofen there is now a clear article about the historical civil parish. As a geographic entity that is already worth keeping. But he has also made a properly sourced article, good enough to convince me of its notability. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:28, 24 October 2012 (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.