Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of St Mary of the Angels


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 00:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Church of St Mary of the Angels

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Text book case of WP:BRANCH where the organization is notable but the local church building is not inherently notable. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest otherwise. Mkdw talk 06:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Sorry but this is the 4th one I've looked at and the 4th where finding sources was immediate. You say "No WP:SIGCOV to suggest otherwise."? Mkdwtalk did you bother to check any of these AfDs in Google Books before doing this mass deletion attempt? How do you explain the gap between the AfD and the President's Design Award 2006 for this structure? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's stick to the AFD at hand. There is a reason I did not do a group nomination and I have replied to your concerns at each. For starters, the award helps its argument for notability but does not make it entirely notable. There's nothing to suggest the award is notable and thus winning it also make the subject notable. WP:ORG specifically avoided this argument in the past because of the number of awards to companies that are out there. The same with WP:LOCAL. As with the other ones, several churches share the name Church of St Mary of the Angels, and when you add Singapore in separate parenthesis it narrows down the hits and reveal numerous trivial mentions. Mkdw talk 20:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not believe WP:LOCAL was intended to dismiss e.g. a full page on the building in a guidebook such as Discover Singapore: The City's History & Culture Redefined 2008. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 20 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. There are many sources abound and the real question is this, has any research been done to warrant such a nomination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Pig (talk • contribs) 05:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I accept. Nothing is inherently notable on Wikipedia. Mkdw talk 20:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 23:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep the standard is more than mention, but significant coverage, but I think it's met by a full page in a guide book. The book absolutely does not have to be entirely or even primarily about the subject. Cf. WP:N and WP:RS. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 25 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.