Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Saint Alphonsus (Novena 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.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 07:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Church of Saint Alphonsus (Novena Church)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Classic case of WP:BRANCH. Notable organization, not inherently notable individual church building. Mkdw talk 06:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I challenge the nominator to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this entry and others that have been nominated for deletion are not "inherently notable" enough to be on Wikipedia. It seems that the entries that were nominated were done so with a certain preconception in mind. It is insufficient to merely cite a wikipedia guide in order to delete an article. By nominating such entries, it shows a clear lack of understanding of the situation at the actual location of the entries in question. It is easy to prove the worthiness of the entries, especially of this particular one, but it is not right in principle to do so as it would encourage the nomination of more entries in future when no proper research has been done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Pig (talk • contribs) 10:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination in particular, should not be treated lightly. It should instead be treated with the utmost seriousness — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Pig (talk • contribs) 10:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I accept. Nothing is inherently notable on Wikipedia. I agree that AFD's are not to be taken lightly, and my track record supports this. Mkdw talk 20:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, non notable branch of the Catholic church. Nothing to set it apart from another, and so far as I know churches aren't considered inherently notable by themselves. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - sufficient coverage in Google Books and notable for being main centre of the novena prayer practice in Singapore. In ictu oculi (talk)
 * one book that has a trivial mention? Unless you omitted Novena Church in which you would have found hundreds of books about the "Church of Saint Alphonsus" which includes all the churches worldwide such as the New Orleans one that is fairly prominent. Mkdw talk 20:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hell In A Bucket, have you even done any research? Prove that it isn't notable instead of just saying it's not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Pig (talk • contribs) 04:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Under the name "Novena Church," appears in numerous histories of Singapore, e.g. History of the Church and Churches in Malaysia and Singapore (1511-2000) by Fr. P. Decroix. The procession, which receives coverage in the Straits Times each year, makes it nationally famous. The building is recognised by the government as historic, and gazetted for conservation. There is a clear failure of WP:BEFORE here. -- 202.124.74.66 (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem very well adversed in Wikipedia for your edit history. I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a guide. Mkdw talk 20:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Mkdw, I think it would be simpler if you stated the reasons why you think the article should not be kept. You cited earlier "Classic case of WP:BRANCH", but in my opinion, it has already been shown that the Church in question, is certainly notable enough to be listed on its own. Pretty Pig (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2013 (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.