Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sale Baptist 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sale Baptist Church
This is a non-notable individual Church location. The 56 unique search hits do nothing to augment notability. Deprodded. Erechtheus 23:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Basically a fill-in-the-blanks overview of a non-notable church. - Richfife 00:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Longhair\talk 01:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- non-notable. - Longhair\talk 01:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are no sources cited and the article does not indicate notability. No references found in an Australia New Zealand database. A Google News Archive similarly fails to find reference to this church. Capitalistroadster 02:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - No references, no assertion of notability. No prejudice against creation if it becomes notable. Andjam 05:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I just had an edit war with an IP who insists in removing the afd notice. MER-C 07:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, it seems that parties are quite motivated to remove the notice and/or blank this AfD page. Two have been issued blocks so far. Erechtheus 07:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The removal of the AfD notice persisted from multiple ips, so I've semi-protected the article for now. - Longhair\talk 08:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - What constitutes a notable church? It should be more than the building... Google may not tell you all that much either. I vote to Keep until criteria for church notability are established. (JROBBO 09:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC))
 * Reply It's not an official policy, but I try to approach churches as if they were elementary schools (they have about the same density) and apply the schools policy to them. That's just me, though. - Richfife 19:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no assertion of notability whatsoever. Lankiveil 12:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete parishcruft. Carlossuarez46 02:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but edit. While the current revision only contains information about the current activities of the church it is my understanding that it is significantly notable in the history of the town. Jasonb 12:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I question the consistency of deleting this article when by the same criteria (claims of notability, references), the following articles from the same category should be deleted and they have been allowed to remain: Crossway Baptist Church, Collins Street Baptist Church, Diamond Valley Baptist Church. Jasonb 12:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply Wikipedia is extremely large (well over a million articles). Hundreds, if not thousands, of new articles are added every day.  The editors are not always able to spot inappropriate articles in a timely manner, but we're working as fast as we can.  We'll look at the articles you pointed out with an eye towards deletion as soon as possible. - Richfife 15:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note I put Crossway and Diamond Valley up for deletion, but not Collins (because of its association with a notable minister). - Richfife 16:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as the article failes WP:V. If the church is notable then there should be sources out there that interested editors can base their articles on. If such sources don't exist, then it's a case of original research. Mako 12:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think there are sources that are not online such as the Sale Historical Society which will point out the article's historical notability. I am happy to look at these sources (and cite them appropriately) in an attempt to bring the article up to standard. I would also appreciate pointers in doing so since I'm new :-) Malcol13 13:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Malcol13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Malcol13 is not a "single purpose account", he's just new. Leave him alone, how would you feel? give the guy a break, he's got a throat infection at the moment too. Nath85 05:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add that: The reason I hadn't previously created an account is because I did not see a need. All the articles I had viewed were generally complete, or not being challenged. Such a great sense of community here I must say, you target new users and assume things about them. Just because I found an article of interest to me, signed up so I could help out, you say i have created a "single purpose account", that's not very nice. I am actually a little disappointed by the wiki community, or part of it at least. If I see a need to help edit another article in the future, then I will, but as yet I do not see that need. I hope you can accept my proposal... Malcol13 06:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Even non-notable churches have their place at Wikipedia. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 16:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd like to take this opportunity to say hi to my mum. Hi Mum! Nath85 05:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --Peta 05:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This Article should stay, but more about the church's history should be included 220.238.233.199 06:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --User:Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:18, 6 October 2006 (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.