Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Places of worship in Framingham, Massachusetts


 * 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   no consensus. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Places of worship in Framingham, Massachusetts

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

A directory of churches in a Massachusetts town — standard for inclusion appears to be simply existence as a religious group in the town. One church in the town is notable as a NRHP-listed site, but no evidence to show that any of the others is, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- It might have been appropriate to merge something, if the article was more than a link farm, but it has no substantive content. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - reasons and rebuttals:
 * It is not a "link farm", it is a list no different than any other list on WP ; This was a split from the main Framingham, Massachusetts article, There were links in the original article that I did not delete when I split it off. I have removed those and all subsequent additions. It is now a strait list.
 * It is not a directory as it does no contain addresses, phone numbers and other such stuff that you would find in a directory;
 * How are Places of worship in Hong Kong, Places of worship in Bangalore, Places of worship in Kumanovo, and Places of worship in Kumanovo acceptable articles when this is not? Is there a standard? These other articles are almost identical in structure and format. Give me some time and I will try to get it a little better with some sources. Many of these places do have a history and are important in one way or another.
 * --Jeremy (blah blah) 01:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be a Yellow Pages entry to be a directory for these purposes — it's an indiscriminate list, and thus fails our standards. As for the other lists, consider the point of this essay — their existence isn't reason to keep this one, and it may be reason to get rid of one or more of them.  The first two are perhaps different; they include a list of notable churches, especially the Hong Kong list that has plenty of listed buildings that are likely as notable as National Register sites are in the USA.  Nyttend (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read what I said, I just commented that you are not adhering to any standard - you're just jumping around willy-nilly. I know all about the other stuff exists essay, my point is that you did not go after the other articles until I pointed them out. If you are going to do stuff, follow a the guidelines and do it right for all of them or none of them. Furthermore what makes it indiscriminate? Please provide a guideline that you are following that shows it to be indiscriminate. The definition of indiscriminate is failing to make or recognize distinctions It shows distinct faiths and denominations in the town, so in that aspect it isn't indiscriminate. If, as I requested, you gave me time so I could find sources that conforms to WP:Note, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:PSTS that would make it not-indiscriminate I will take care of this making the article conform to the first guideline in WP:NOTADIRECTORY, making this a Merged group of small articles. --Jeremy (blah blah) 06:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but trim down, a lot. Framingham is a prominent college town and exurban community west of Boston, MA. Many of the church are notable, and the article is part of a series.  It can be rescued. Disclosure: I once resided in this town. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. The article can probably be developed to something along the lines of List of churches in Philadelphia or even List of churches in Greater Manchester. An alternative is to rework the article along the lines of Christianity in Omaha, Nebraska to discuss the history of religious worship in the town. --Polaron | Talk 18:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Question If there are plenty of notable churches, this idea won't find any disagreement from me, but aside from the NRHP-listed First Baptist, which of these churches are notable? Nyttend (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The individual items in a list do not need to be themselves notable. Notability only refers to whether a stand-alone article should exist or not. If the list entry is not notable, the simple soultion would be to not link it. Also see this and this for precedent and other arguments for keeping these kinds of lists. --Polaron | Talk 20:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Question was primarily directed at Bearian, who changed the intro to "This is an article on the notable Places of Worship...". Wasn't paying attention; I should have placed the comment up a little higher.  Nyttend (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep but rename "List of ..." to clearly indicate it is a list, not an article. Individual items don't have to be notable to appear on a list and the overall concept of "places of worship in XXX" is likely notable in most cases, including this one.  (Only a weak keep since very few of the items are independently notable). List could be improved by adding some basic info about each church such as the year in was founded, its approximate congregation size, and it official webpage (if there is one). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2009 (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.