Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Valley Baptist 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Diamond Valley Baptist Church
Non-notable church. Article being used as a precedent. Richfife 16:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. ~ lav-chan @ 16:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Even non-notable churches have their place at Wikipedia. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn parish; parishcruft. And I strongly disagree with Kf4bdy; if it isn't notable, it doesn't belong here. Carlossuarez46 18:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * DeleteNo verifiable claim of notability. Notable churches could have articles, but not every church. Notablilty does not equal mere size.Edison 20:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Melbourne per WP:LOCAL. JYolkowski // talk 00:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)  Actually, Diamond Creek, Victoria might be a better merge target.  JYolkowski // talk 00:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Longhair\talk 02:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- non-notable church. -- Longhair\talk 03:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable individual Church location. Erechtheus 03:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --Peta 05:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No assertion of notability. Prolog 13:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see how this is notable. Lankiveil 05:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC).
 * keep why does a church have to be notable to have an article. It's just the history of a church. It's good to have an article for the interested people. Besides an encyclopedia is supposed to contain all branches of knowledge, look it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidlum (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. No attemp to assert notability.  Vegaswikian 06:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent sources used, notability is not established and there is no reason to believe an article adhering to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV can be written on this subject, much less maintained in such state. GRBerry 03:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- DiegoTehMexican 03:27, 10 October 2006 (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.