Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mary's Church, Longnewton


 * 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   keep. Courcelles 21:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

St. Mary's Church, Longnewton

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not a notable church. Andrew Duffell (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * keep Grade II* Listing. AFAIK, consensus is generally that listed buildings (esp Grade I and II*) are, by nature of their listing, notable. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note see Notability (architecture) - Pit-yacker (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two telephone boxes on Yarm high street. These are Grade II listed... does that make them notable enough for wikipedia?  I think there needs to more than just being listed to establish notability. Andrew Duffell (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes the phone boxes are Grade II listed, this church is Grade II* listed. The question over whether Grade II (over 90% of listed buildings are in this category) listing is notable to qualify an article for Wikipedia is more open.  However, the general consensus is that a Grade II* (or Grade I) listing generally confers inherent notability.  Grade I or II* listing suggests the building is in some way regarded as one of the most important examples of architecture in the country. Pit-yacker (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Pit-yacker. Bob talk 20:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - To be listed, the inclusion standards are higher than wikipedia's. And the nom has given absolutely no reason as to why they think this is "non a notable church." --Oakshade (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Grade II* listing places it in top 7% of listed buildings in UK. Thus notability is established. Article needs expansion, but that is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mjroots. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Pit-yacker. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:44, 14 September 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.