Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian religious houses in Belgium


 * 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Christian religious houses in Belgium

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A list of churches in Belgium. fails WP:Notdirectory and WP:nottravel as either a directory of churches in Belgium, or a travel guide to churches in Belgium.  LegoTech &middot;(t)&middot;(c) 04:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not churches, but rather monasteries and convents, which tend to have more history and be more notable than the average church. --Eastmain (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY.  a s e nine say what?  08:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Too many red links to qualify these listed sites as notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete churches, monasteries and convents are generally not notable, with sourcing required. This is a redlink farm, delete as per the above TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 15:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The churches, as well as the monasteries and convents, and add the beguinages to make this a more useful article. The beguine movement was a unique movement that started in the Low Countries in the 1180s and lasted until the 1960s, or so. Therefore, including the beguinages would make this article more encyclopedic in scope. Yes, there are a lot of red links, but I see that as an indication of the number of articles--the amount of information--that could be accessed from this article. Rapunzelina (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Such information one would in fact expect to find in a specialized historical building encyclopedia. Wikipedia's charter states that it also a keeper of speciazlied encyclopedia information. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep One would expect to see such information on a specialized encyclopedia on non-parish religious buildings. Red-links indicate potential for expansion, not "Too many things that aren't notable"; Wikipedia is always a work in progress.  Celarnor Talk to me  22:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep appropriate encyclopedic content--the red links are probably notable here and just need the articles written. DGG (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as the beginning of a useful reference. This is specifically a list of religious houses, ie, monasteries / nunnneries / convents etc (including béguinages) and NOT churches, wh are different and would require a separate list. As most people are aware (surely??), monasteries were/are extremely important in European history / architecture / economics / culture / religion, and most have significance way beyond their immediate locality. Redlinks indicate articles waiting to be written, not lack of notability - that there are a lot, is just a sign that there is still a great deal of work to be done on Wikipedia on this sort of subject outside the Anglophone world. HeartofaDog (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC) (creator of the article)
 * Keep per DGG. Stifle (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a list of monastic instituions of various kinds, but provides more than just names. Some of these will ne notable; others not.  I know we regularly delete articles on churches as NN, but that does not mean that all churches are NN, and some certainly are notable.  That should also apply to monasteries.  Lists such as this are useful for identifying articles that may be needed, since you cannot have redlinks in a category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: entirely in line with the style guideline and editing guideline on lists (guidelines more people citing WP:Notdirectory should be familiar with), plus all the other reasons given by other editors for the usefulness and appropriateness of this particular list. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep But rmv the red-links. T r e e s R o c k  Pl an t A Tr ee! 15:26, 17 May 2008 (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.