Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gospel Standard Strict Baptist chapels


 * 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 List of Strict Baptist churches. Most of the comments in this discussion seem to indicate that it's not useful to have two separate lists: one for Strict Baptist chapels, and one for Strict Baptist chapels that have been published in a particular magazine. The notability concerns of such highly specific inclusion criteria are convincing. It would be easy enough (and far more efficient and concise) to list all of these chapels in one place, with a column in the table that indicates whether or not it's a Gospel Standard chapel. -Scottywong | yak _ 15:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Gospel Standard Strict Baptist chapels

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article appears to be nothing more than a directory. --  Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 06:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 06:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 06:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but turn into an article (renamed as Gospel Standard Baptists) or merge to Strict Baptists. There seems to be a genuine Baptist subgroup here with distinct beliefs (e.g. a complete disavowal of evangelism), and a reasonable number of book sources. The table needs heavy trimming, though. -- 202.124.74.69 (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge -- We also have List of Strict Baptist churches, which seems to cover the same ground though not as well, and to include some of the same churches. This is well constructed list article with additional details on some of the churches.  A number of the churches have their own articles.  I am not familiar with the intricacies of the Strict Baptists, to which the article on Gospel Standard Baptists redirects.  I assume that this is one denomination using a variety of names.  If there are two denominations they need to be split properly.  Unfortuantely getting good articles on small denominations is often difficult.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and there is no indication a list like this could meet N. Churches on this list that have WP articles already appear on List of Strict Baptist churches (which would cover a great many more churches than just those appearing on this list), but a greater merge with List of Strict Baptist churches is inappropriate because the selection criteria of such a list should be limited to WP articles per WP:LSC (because the broader list could not meet the third bullet and the second is irrelevant here). Novaseminary (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. It seems a shame to lose this, though I know there is little support for (or encyclopedic purpose to) listing a slew of non-notable congregations. I see that many of the churches have pictures, however, which means that this info might be presented by a gallery page at Commons. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That couldn't hurt. Is there precedent at Commons for a directory? -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What is or isn't a "directory" mostly turns on what kind of information is present. Commons wouldn't tolerate contact information, for example, any more than Wikipedia, though I don't know that any guideline on Commons uses the term "directory" to discourage that sort of thing rather than just warning against self-promotion. If you're asking whether Commons would permit a gallery page of items of which not every item is notable (i.e., every church building in a given locale with informative captions), then yes. The scope there is "educational", not the more narrow "encyclopedic"; see Commons:Scope and more specifically, Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories. postdlf (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Strict Baptist churches, of which it is a content fork, pruning the list to only include notable churches. I think the photos are fine for a list of churches. StAnselm (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Wouldn't that really be a an !vote for redirect then? All of the churches with WP articles are already listed at List of Strict Baptist churches and the lead of the Gospel Standard list is inappropriate for List of Strict Baptist churches (and is unsourced, etc.), as is the "preacher" and "notes" aspects. I suppose adding images for each church to the List of Strict Baptist churches is not the end of the world, but if the images appear on the articles themselves, why clutter the list? And wouldn't an EL to a Commons category be better? Regardless, I would support a redirect as an alternative to deletion (admittedly with the same result as deleting and then creating a new redirect), so long as there is no instruction to merge any particular part of this list with List of Strict Baptist churches. Culled of the non-notable churches and directory information, there could even be sections for Gospel Standard Strict Baptist churches and other Strict Baptist chapels at the target, if such distinctions are verifiable and not POV, etc. But all of that could happen now, regardless of what happens here. The list under discussion as currently purposed needs to go, one way or another. Novaseminary (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, but turn into the article: Gospel Standard. This is a list of Strict Baptist chapels as published in that magazine. The members called themselves Gospel Standard Strict Baptists. Ouddorp (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Do you mean merge? There already is a Gospel Standard covering the magazine. The list material of this list is inappropriate there (or anywhere on WP). The minimal unsourced lead material would be fine in a section of Gospel Standard if sourced, etc., on Gospel Standard. That would make it a redirect, though, not keep. Novaseminary (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of Strict Baptist churches with a redirect. Per Peterkingiron's rationale. Pol430  talk to me 18:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: What the article is now often has little relation to what it could be.  And it appears to me it the basis for a valid notable article.  Whether it should be merged or converted into an article on Gospel Standard Baptists, which we used to have  until one editor boldly redirected it in July 2011, can continue after AfD closes.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:28, 29 May 2012 (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.