Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Baptist Church, Eastleigh


 * 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 merge to Eastleigh. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  23:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Emmanuel Baptist Church, Eastleigh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is not Notable it's just about organization without any citations.  Nepali Keto 62 Talk to me 23:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Change to Merge to Eastleigh as is not a listed building.local chutrch, some references have been added, better ones required such as press coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve per Atlantic306, evidently a notable building in the town. OnionRing (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: I can't for the life of me see what notability the above "keep" !votes are referring to. It has some very insignificant local coverage, certainly not enough to pass WP:GNG. The report on the website of the company that did the church's floor does not qualify. StAnselm (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: There seems to be COI editing here: the article creator appears to be the minister of the church. StAnselm (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge with Old Baptist Union. Noticed the COI and lack of notability despite the old building. Bpc.sg (talk)
 * I'm sure that as far as church buildings in Hampshire go, this doesn't qualify as "old". StAnselm (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete ; I don't think merge is the right direction as there's virtually no information to salvage from this article other than the church exists. To deletion; both of the "keep" voters are claiming notability for the church (in one case) and the building (in the other). Yet, there's no references to indicate this building or church is in anyway notable (Note that a church and the building it resides in are separate entities) . That the building's been the subject of a restoration effort doesn't make it notable. Even the article about the restoration makes no claim to the building being in anyway notable. Of the other four references, one is a primary source which is useless to establish notability, one is to a Google+ which does not count as a reliable source (and again doesn't sustain notability) , one is to another primary source (a group organization it belongs to) , and finally one connects to the local council website, which contains no mention of the church or the building . Not one bit of this supports any notion of notability. Also, I concur with StAnselm that being 103 years old in England hardly qualifies this building as "old" in that country. I searched the National Heritage List for England, and could not find any listing for "Desborough Mission Hall" (the building the church resides in) nor for the church itself  (the 2 results there point to a location 60 miles away from this one). This article, were it not at AfD, would be a candidate for A7. Further, that the article was created apparently by the pastor of the church points to a direct conflict of interest. That by itself is not a reason to delete, but adds to the problematic nature of this article.   Could you please provide some basis for your analysis that this church or building is in some way notable other than just saying so? That it exists doesn't make it notable. We know the church and building exist. If you can find reliable, secondary sources attesting to the notability of either this church or building, please do so and I will consider changing my recommendation here. As is, you've provided no basis in policy on why this article should be kept. Please clarify. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Updated to Merge A reference to the church in Eastleigh appears to be apropos given established style for this sort of article. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A week on, and  still haven't responded to my query as to how this church and/or building is notable. Onion/Atlantic, should we disregard your keep votes? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Mistakenly thought it would be a listed building in which case it would have a claim for a page but thanks to your link can see that is not the case so perhaps as suggested below a merge to Eastleigh would be best with a few sentences and the picture. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (thanks for coming back to the conversation!) Ok, but why even merge it? We're not an indiscriminate collection of information. If we included this building, what's to stop us from including every building in the community in the merge? We need to discriminate at some level. What is that level? Why would this building be above that level and others are not? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is standard practice to include the main churches in articles about small towns and villages Atlantic306 (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And so it is (per this). I've amended my recommendation appropriately. Thanks! --Hammersoft (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this AfD is way over due, would you mind amending your recommendation from keep to merge? It would make it easier for those viewing this to close it. We're pretty scattershot right now. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks for changing to merge Atlantic306 (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Eastleigh, and merge/reduce to about a sentence. Both useful and usual for long-standing congregations/church buildings, especially those with a history of successive congregations, to have a brief mention on a small town page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the section on churches at WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, would the three of you be agreeable to a merge (likely to Eastleigh)? Please respond so we can get this closed. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with a merge, so long as it's only one or two sentences. You can go ahead and add it into Eastleigh, and then this discussion can be closed as redirect. StAnselm (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have added a mention of the church to the Eastleigh article. The picture File:Ready-to-welcome3.jpg, needs to be renamed, but that is an issue for Commons. StAnselm (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Eastleigh. This article provides slightly more detail than a typical local church article, but this should be limited to a brief history of the building, naming founder, its earlier status as a Congregational Church and present one as Baptist; and not much more.  This section could be expanded by similar entries on other local churches.  A merger or redirect to Baptist Union, a denomination with hundreds of churches, or even to the county Baptist Association would not be helpful.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Eastleigh per other contributors. Second choice would be a merge to Old Baptist Union. It think Peterkingiron is confusing that union (which has just 16 member churches) with Baptists Together, which has hundreds. Wagger<b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  10:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You may be right that I was confused as to the denominational target, but redirecting a church to its denomination is generally not helpful. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2016 (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.