Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Riverside, California religious institutions


 * 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. A category similar to what was suggested by Stuartyeates is already present. (See Category:Places of worship in Riverside County, California and its subcategory). Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

List of Riverside, California religious institutions

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. WP is not a directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - List of churches makes me wonder, where do we draw the line? It seems ok for huge cities, but what is the cut off?  Cities of 1 million or more only?  I have no idea, I just know there are some articles similar to this one (yes, not a reason to keep, I know, I'm not !voting) so the guideline isn't obvious.  The list isn't indiscriminate, and actually, the idea of a list like this makes sense for larger cities, but why not for where I live, Lexington, NC: population 20k?  Obviously absurd, but I'm wondering if there is a threshold for articles like this, and how Riverside fit into the threshold. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP is rife with all sorts of lists - some good and some bad. It seems that some WPdians have an unhealthy fixation with lists at the expense of creating articles with prose. I guess the more broad the list is the more likely it is to worthwhile, but there is always the attendant problem of keeping them within some sort of manageable size. As for your question about which lists to include, the answer is that the community decides by consensus. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I personally have no objections to such lists, even for smaller cities such as Riverside, there seem to be only three churches listed which currently have their own individual articles. If there were more churches with articles, the list might make more sense, but, without evidence that there are sufficient churches with established notability, such a list seems to me to cross the line regarding listcruft, and possibly, promotion of non-notable organizations. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The notable churches can be mentioned at Riverside, California. (I don't understand why they aren't there already.) The non-notable ones do not belong in Wikipedia. Not only is this list unnecessary, but it could be a magnet for complaints - "Hey, you didn't list THIS minor sect! Religious discrimination!" --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete we are not a directory. each item, even if not an article link, should have some indication of notability: building is old/architecturally significant, the group is old, notable, member was famous, etc. if the list of such notable churches that have articles ever goes beyond a half dozen, then a list or article would be ok, but not for 3.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Convert to a category for notable members. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2011 (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.