Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Court chapel


 * 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 Speedy Keep per WP:SK, as requested. See WP:MERGE for the appropriate process. Andrew (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Court chapel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

My first preference was to leave this for a while, with a notability tag, for the writer to work on it. Francis is obviously putting in a lot of time on it. However, due to Francis' continual removal of the notability tag and merge tag, I think AfD is the best option. Please see my comments (and Francis' andBD2412's) on Talk:Court chapel. Both BD2412 and I were supporting a possible merge with Royal chapel and Chapel (music). My original merge proposal template, with Court chapel (disambiguation), was repeatedly removed by Francis, despite my suggestion that discussions needed a bit of time. I won't be commenting further than to add my support for a merge with Royal chapel and Chapel (music), per 's comments at Talk:Court chapel, although I would also support a delete. I don't want to get further involved, receive further aggressive messages or further edit warring, which is why I won't be commenting further. Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 09:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 09:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 09:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 09:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Tx. Nobody wants this deleted, not even the one who proposed it for deletion. I said thanks for the promise to stop aggresive involvement by Boleyn. Notability has been established, there's no problem there (see talk:Court chapel), so a notability tag is without object. Same for this WP:AfD... I'd propose a speedy close of this AfD, apparently it was only opened out of spite, and as said nobody wants the article deleted (so, wrong forum). Whether, once the article has passed beyond stub state, it should be merged, split (Hofkapelle may be prove to be a good candidate for that) or whatever can be discussed once the stub stage is behind us. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact this AfD listing complies completely to speedy keep #1: "The nominator (...) fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as (...) merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted" (bolding added — well, from the nomination above follows that not even the nominator proposes a deletion). Admin? Or is there any other method to set a speedy keep in motion? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2014 (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.