Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peebles Old Parish Church


 * 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn. See below. Non-admin closing. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Peebles Old Parish Church

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

An article on a non-notable Scottish church. There is nothing significant about this church that would make it more notable than the billions of other churches in the world. Tavix (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Tavix (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N. Google search shows little notability.  --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep All my articles shall not be deleted. Tharnton345 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a reason. Also, please don't remove AFD tags when an article is still under discussion. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 19:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Tharnton345, Wikipedia articles, even ones you created, are not yours. Please read WP:OWN. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 20:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It was opened in 1887 at a cost of £9, 500. Tharnton345 (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Borderline case. Mentioned in tourism sites. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 19:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How about adding it to the main page on the city, at least until there is enough content for a separate page? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - interesting historical church and sufficient sources to meet WP:N, for example, , in addition to what may be found locally such as the book here. TerriersFan (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm landing on Keep for this one, but it certainly could use some expansion. It appears to have historic significance as a landmark.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - OK; I have sourced up and expanded the page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. I guess I should have dug a little deeper for sources. Thanks. Tavix (talk) 23:19, 5 August 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.