Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSI Garrison Wesley 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 keep. Clean-up and over-linking to be handled outside AfD scope.(non-admin closure)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  00:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

CSI Garrison Wesley Church

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promo. non-neutral/peacock, multiple subjects in one article, fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 15:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep It is true that the article is astoundingly overstuffed, overhyped and overlinked (I don't think I've ever seen a church article before in which the Reverend is bluelinked in the list of former pastors) That said, we are talking about a surviving mission Church in India, foundation laid 1853,building completed  1881.  And beyond peacocking, hype and stuffing, there are good sources like "162-year-old church in Secunderabad restored," in The Hindu.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep with some very aggressive cleanup. Bradv  23:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I might like to keep all church articles. The question is how notable this is.  It perhaps originated as a church where the (British) officers of the garrison worshipped (hence garrison), perhaps with merger of a Methodist mission (hence Wesley). Certainly Purge of the excessive amount of background.  After that I fear that we will not be left with much material except on its renovation.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Source # 4 from The Hans India has info on the church's origins - as a garrison church with an army chaplain as pastor - and current use by a local congregation, with a description of the turreted Gothic building.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * {ping|The Banner}, Did you consider working with article creator to help him understand how to delimit an article, and what material belongs on a page about a church, and when to link to other articles on broader topics?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, as I assume that somebody editing Wikipedia for the last 17 months knows the drills. The Banner talk 01:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources provided establish notability. "Promo. non-neutral/peacock, multiple subjects in one article" are all issues that can be remedied quite readily and do not require the article to be deleted. An editor who has been here for eight years needs to gain some familiarity with WP:PRESERVE and WP:Deletion policy, which are both rather clear that efforts *MUST* be made to preserve encyclopedic content. No such effort was made here. Alansohn (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are wrong again. The Banner talk 08:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL, WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Paring down overstuffed articles takes real work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I did make a start with improving the article. But I was removing so much irrelevant stuff, that I did shy away and did not save the removals. In fact, I was doing exactly as was suggested above: an "aggressive cleanup". The Banner talk</i> 16:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Kudos for what? claims I did make a start with improving the article. But I was removing so much irrelevant stuff, that I did shy away and did not save the removals. In fact, I was doing exactly as was suggested above: an "aggressive cleanup". The problem is that the only edit this editor has made to the article is to nominate it for deletion. The failure to understand, let alone observe, the policy obligations dictated by WP:PRESERVE and WP:Deletion policy raise significant issues about an editor who's been at this for more than eight years and 60,000 edits. Alansohn (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, good grief. WP:TROUT to Nom, whose word I took. I was WP:AGF.  Look, this is just a church, notable for its location, history and building. Why would an editor lie about revising an undoubtedly overstuffed PROMO, but otherwise innocuous article on an old church in India?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Meher Mansion, I hope that you will consider editing the text (perhaps adding some of what you wrote to other articles that can be linked here,) This will make a better article. It will also enable fellow editors considering deletion to more easily perceive the notability of this building and congregation, if the most of the material on Christianity in India is removed.  It is usual on Wikipedia to confine pages about individual churches to material directly related to the specific church under discussion.  Discussion of broader topics belongs in wide-focus articles such as Christianity in India, Anglican Church of India and so forth.  Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Topic meets WP:GNG and therefore should be kept. I'd like to throw in here one more essay - WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Anup   [Talk]  21:23, 20 November 2016 (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.