Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of the Holy Comforter


 * 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 - author fixed issues raised about the article. Closed by nominator. -- Dougie WII (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Church of the Holy Comforter

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Disambiguation page for all non-existent articles. No assertion that any of the churches listed are notable. Dougie WII (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - worthless page --ZacBowlingtalk 05:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not much more to say here. I'll say a prayer for these churches, but I don't see any need for a fully redlinked dab page.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - a list of non-notable churches is non-notable by definition. One of the churches has an article now, so redirect to Church of the Holy Comforter (Poughkeepsie, New York). Or better yet, redirect that page to this one. Eatcacti (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Just not notable enough. • Lawrence Cohen  05:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. If all or most of these churches were likely to be notable, I would support retention. As this is not the case, there is no need for a disambig\uation page. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect perhaps to Church of the Holy Comforter (Poughkeepsie, New York)? Otherwise get rid of it, a disambig page here is pure lunacy.  Lankiveil (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Redirect to Church of the Holy Comforter (Poughkeepsie, New York), Page was created after AfD started -ZacBowlingtalk 07:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't know what you guys were looking at, but all of these churches are on the National Register of Historic Places. That means that each of them is deemed by the US Government as locations worthy of preservation---ergo notable.  Thus, while only one of them has an article written on them, all of them are notable enough to have one!  Thus, this link is meritorious.Balloonman (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep List of National Register of Historic Places entries are notable. --Brewcrewer (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment -- The author updated the page to assert some of the churches are on the National Register of Historic Places and removed those that are not, so this AfD can probably be closed. -- Dougie WII (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with Dougie WII above. Hammer1980 ·talk 11:49, 25 November 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.