Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Mary's Catholic Church Maryborough


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Saint Mary's Catholic Church Maryborough

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I don't know why this church is notable. I think it's probably not. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  05:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Because it's recorded in the history book cited? Having said that: This too is based upon that self-same history book, and filched it wholesale and put it in the first version of the article. Uncle G (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as there is no significan coverage in third party reliable sources about church. I found only this book, which alone is not enough to establish notability. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  14:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Psst! There's a reason that the find sources template imposes the exclusions on books that it does. The actual book, already cited, is  Uncle G (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails to satisfy WP:ORG. A typical church, referenced only to its own website and a local history book (a 72 page work held by only 2 libraries worldwide). Edison (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It is noted in all the places where a parish would be noted, namely the directories of churches in the area. It's a real church where baptisms, weddings, and funerals happen.  When the article was written, the nom's concerns could have been brought to the article's creator, unfortunately, no longer active on Wikipedia.  I would let this article be and wait for improvement by an local editor who could find with little effort coverage in Maryborough or Brisbane media of this 150 year-old parish to pass WP:ORG.  Asking for this to happen in this little Afd window is absurd. patsw (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, In my experience, the little AfD window is the only time articles like this get improved. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  01:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is so, then you make the point this essay WP:TIMELIMIT seeks to avoid as undermining the value of Wikipedia. patsw (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not the reason for the nomination. I'm just saying that sometimes no one seems to care about an article until it's nominated for deletion. But that's neither here nor there - there's a lot of churches in the world and a lot of 150-year-old churches in the world, a lot of real churches with baptisms, and a lot of churches that appear in "directories" (which Wikipedia is not), the question is why this one is notable when most aren't. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  13:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not simply convert to a redirect to Maryborough, Queensland where a short paragraph on the church is appropriate ? Maybe a standalone article is not sustainable but the subject is pertinent. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge a short summary with Maryborough, Queensland. The number of redlinks speaks for itself that this is a NN local church.  Its hisotry is intersting, but NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Is this a copyvio of this page cited by Uncle G above? If so, delete. If not, redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane as non-notable parish under WP:ORG, but allowing re-creation if notability can be established later. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. Lists are copyrightable under the U.S. law that governs Wikipedia to the extent that they are creative, which includes both presentation and selection of facts. This one is clearly creative in both accounts. I've removed the pasted text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the copyrighted content has been removed, redirect as above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Threshold of "originality" test for copyright in Australia is even lower: Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited (2002) FCAFC 112 (15 May 2002) --Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nomination. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 09:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no gnews coverage . LibStar (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2010 (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.