Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St John's Blackheath


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

St John's Blackheath

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No claim of notability made. Seems just like a regular church. Bazonka (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No Proof of notability under wp:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

*Delete -- Obviously a NN local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment – I just came across this totally at random. I believe notability is asserted by its fairly extensive statutory listing report by English Heritage, by its entry in the "London South" edition (1983) of The Buildings of England series by Pevsner (which I don't have to hand today, but which I can see on the Google Books snippit view), and by its entry in Roger Homan's The Victorian Churches of Kent (1983), which I do have to hand.  I don't know whether the separate notability of the architect is relevant or not policy-wise, but I'm sure it can't hurt.  Unfortunately I will be struggling for time to do much on this tonight ... could this be left with me for 24 hours pls?   Hassocks  5489 (Floreat Hova!)  18:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC) — Oh, sorry, I forgot to say that should the article be kept, it should be named St John the Evangelist's Church, Blackheath (but I can sort that out).   Hassocks  5489 (Floreat Hova!)  18:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's only Grade II listed, which is the lowest level. That still doesn't make it especially notable. Almost all churches (except the really modern ones) are listed. Bazonka (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll add what I can and then I'll leave it to consensus to decide. I have to go out now, so bear with me.   Hassocks  5489 (Floreat Hova!)  19:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That (i.e. this diff) is about as far as I can get with the sources I have to hand. I suspect more offline sources exist, but I won't be in a position to find any in the short term.  It's a bit thin, but I would lean towards Keep here.   Hassocks  5489 (Floreat Hova!)  23:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The Church building is LISTED. It was also designed by a famous architect, over a century ago. The page needs to be expanded, but definitely not removed.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Hassocks has made a strong point on our most basic criteria of "multiple independent reliable sources", and the listing does count as a very relevant such source, regardless of the level of that listing. Given that we routinely consider NRHP listings (which on average can be characterized as less notable than the average British listed building) notable, that's more than enough arguments. Circéus (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: based primarily on the English Heritage listing and Pevsner as indicators of notability. And taking a step back, this is providing a decent article which could inform the casual visitor who sought more information on the building, thus meeting primary expectations of an encyclopaedia. AllyD (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (Changed vote) at least Weak keep -- I do not think that Listing is by itslef sufficient for notability, but Pevsner's support is enough to lift it beyond the mundane typical local church (which we regularly delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2014 (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.