Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of churches in the United Church of Canada


 * 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. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 14:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

List of churches in the United Church of Canada


A long and sprawling directory of non-notable individual churches that belong to the United Church of Canada. Wikipedia is not a directory. Canjth 21:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. Canjth 21:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. This is not a directory, but a list. Wikipedia has lots of lists. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a directory. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid resaon to keep, Earl. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep WP ontains many lists--as it should. this is the preferred way of handling this sort of information--more appropriate than individual articles. DGG (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP contains many lists of notable subjects, what makes these notable?  Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  01:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup, although I'm not the expert to do so. This is one of the two largest Christian Denominations in Canada, which is notable in itself, and many of the parishes are also notable.  Also, this complies with WP:LIST. Bearian 13:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. A list of notable churches might be acceptable, but that purpose would be better served by a category.  WP:LIST is a style guideline, not a guideline for inclusion or exclusion of articles. Toohool 18:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT as a directory. As already stated, a list of notable churches in a denomination MAY be notable. However, this appears to be developing into a list of external links, none of which appears to have a notability og their own. Nuttah68 21:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep because Wikipedia is not paper and so we can be pretty inclusive of content; plus, organizing verifiable information in list format is what references do. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What content is being verified? The name of each church? or the link to each ext. site? I think we should remember "Wikipedia is not a LinkFarm".   Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  02:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete- I agree per exit, the subjects are notable, but not the lsit, which is needless. Agree per category remark.JJJ999 02:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- Unsourced, reeks of Original Research (unless someone has a large, verifiable source that isn't a list that this was plagiarized from that contains all the churches in the United Church of Canada?). Deltopia 20:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete parishcruft & WP is not a directory or yellow pages, what's next List of McDonald's locations, List of gas stations, List of people in the Manhattan telephone book? c'mon. Carlossuarez46 21:44, 2 October 2007 (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.