Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanata United Church

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kanata United Church
This appears to be a vanity page for the user's church. It doesn't seem to be of any encyclopedic merit. There's many churches in the world, and I don't see anything that makes this one particularly special. --Screetchy cello 00:37, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, while many churches are worthy of inclusion this entry is pure self-promotion. - SimonP 01:52, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable, vanity. Lacrimosus 01:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup and keep. --Spinboy 02:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, slef-promotion. --nixie 02:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, promotional. android&harr;talk 04:07, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup and keep. All public institutions are notable.--Gene_poole 04:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing to seperate it from your average run of the mill church. Out of curiosity, does your vote mean that you wish to keep articles on every church, post-office, and DMV in the world? DaveTheRed 04:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Absolutely. This is an encyclopedia, after all. --Gene_poole 22:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You and I have very different notions about the definition of the word encyclopedia. DaveTheRed 00:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Vote keep on Queen Street postbox! It makes sense, and you knows it!  I think we can safely delete this without causing permanent damage to en:.Chris 21:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, some churches are notable; this one fails to show why it clears that bar. I fear that there may be many similar entries soon; someone has created a List of churches in the United Church of Canada.  --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 04:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 05:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * keep Yuckfoo 06:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This subject should be an article. However, the content as it is reads as vanity. I would consider changing my vote to Keep if someone in the know were to change the content. I'd rather have a redlink in requested articles than a stubby vanity piece. --Deathphoenix 13:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with previous sentiments. Delete current version, but keep the page if someone brings it back later as a serious article.  CJCurrie 16:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Generic, especially the mission statement.  Dpbsmith (talk) 23:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, flag for rewrite. Current version is rubbish, but should serve as a better basis for future article than nothing on this encyclopedic topic. Pcb21| Pete 23:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.