Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St John's Roman Catholic 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 of the debate was no consensus (merged), as I count seventeen delete votes and nine keep votes (plus an odd-man-out merge vote), with issues being confused by interpersonal disputes instead of discussion of the subject. While I don't see a firm consensus to delete this article, what I do see is a rather bare stub (that people were apparently unable to expand or reference during the AFD period), and a consensus to not have a separate article about this church.

As such, I have merged this very bare stub into Barrhead, with the edit history at Barrhead, Scotland. Please don't break this article out again unless you can expand it and add a claim of notability (or take this to WP:DRV). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

St John's Roman Catholic Church
UE, D. ComCat 05:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Beg pardon? encephalon  20:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep encyclopedic. --Vsion 06:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no claim to notability. -- Kjkolb 06:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Individual churches are generally non-encyclopedic. --Metropolitan90 06:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep this large (over 5000 parishoners) and notable church which serves a number of schools.--Nicodemus75 07:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Commment Oh, if it serves schools then it must be notable...--Isotope23 17:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence this serves schools. And even so that is irrelevant... unless you're in select users minds.Gateman1997 06:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Large old churches are notable. A1kmm 10:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is a large and/or old church? Where does it say that in the article? I'm indifferent to keep/delete on this one, but if that's true, could you add it to the article somehow? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Please note that this nominator has a history of disruptive nominations, please refer to Requests for comment/ComCat for details. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No claim of notability in the article. - Andre Engels 14:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, churches are just as encyclopedic as schools. - SimonP 15:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Archdiocese of Glasgow (if that page doesn't exist, it probably should). Perodicticus 15:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Churches are notable, Catholic churches doubly so --Pypex 17:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Why are Catholic churches more notable than other churches? I'm not sure I like that POV. - Dalbury (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Just giving props to my religion, chalk it up to countering systemic bias. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously, but I'm sure it will now come back to haunt me should I ever take sides in a religious debate.--Pypex 23:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Internet posts don't convey nuances very well. I'm used to using emoticns and such to supply tone, but that doesn't seem to be the habit here. - Dalbury (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * delete NN Pete.Hurd 19:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN. I'm not familiar with what distinguishes churches that do have articles, but this article doesn't show me anything notable. - Dalbury (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I could see keeping a church with notable architecture or a notable history.  No such claims are made here. Durova 21:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Incomprehensible nomination by a problem user. He/she shouldn't be encouraged. CalJW 23:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:CIV - "Incomprehensible"? The vote is evenly split, so it looks like half of us voting in here find the nomination quite comprehensible. - Dalbury (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to the local diocese until such time as this church is noteworthy.Gateman1997 01:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: I feel certain that there is individuality and historical significance to this church, but this article is yet another attempt at getting Wikipedia to house the local Yellow Pages. No information in the article (that's what we're debating, and any vote that mentions "churches" as opposed to the article ought to be discounted as simply not applicable) indicates what is almost sure to be there.  If a rewrite or a new article on the church explained its status, function, and place in history, it would be fine.  As it is, not at all.  Down with mass produced votes.  Geogre 01:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: My vote is based on general principles applying to "churches", but nevertheless I have read the article and don't believe this particular church is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, nor that the content of the article needs to be included in Wikipedia. The closing admin should not discount any votes on the grounds that the voter claims to consistently vote either to keep, or to delete, articles about churches. --Metropolitan90 05:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I suspect that the number of members (5,300) is inflated because it is bigger than the population of the entire town (4,212). The surrounding communities have churches of their own, I checked. According to this source, church attendance in Scotland is about 11 percent. If that is the case here, the number has been overestimated by over ten times. Even if church attendance in town is significantly higher than average, it is still far lower than the number given, unless the church has a lot of members that travel from other towns. -- Kjkolb 01:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Are people sniffing glue?  The article title is "St John's Roman Catholic Church," but the article (anyone read that?) says that it's not the name of the church.  Supposing, however, that it were the name, how many other churches have that name?  How many in New York City?  How many in New York State?  How many in New Jersey?  How many in England?  How many in South Africa?  How many in Australia?  The name collisions are inestimable.  Wikipedia is NOT the Yellow Pages.  Please, folks, get sane about this.  I know you want every high school in the universe, including all home schools, to be included, but just think for a moment about what happens when you unthinkingly vote "keep OMG why are you nominating this!" on a misnamed, misplaced, empty article like this one.  Geogre 01:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: as I am the only one who edited the nomination after you did, is your comment is about me or did you think of something to add later? I voted to delete the article, and the church's full name isn't relevant to my comment, only that it's the correct town. The article would need to be renamed to its full name, if kept, and I found a lot of churches named "Saint John the Evangelist", so if all the other churches are added, there would be a huge amount of disambiguation required. I think the church's non-notability is the reason it should be deleted, however. Sorry if I misunderstood you and as for my glue abuse, no comment. -- Kjkolb 02:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * By no means did I intend you. In fact, we were editing at the same time, so your comment wasn't visible to me when I made mine.  I was reacting to the votes above that were repeats of those given whenever the voter thinks that the issue is "notability" and my suspicion that they are afraid that admitting that a particular church is an improper subject is going to transfer into a statement that a particular school is an improper subject.  I was simply trying to remind folks that it's not the subject we assess, but the article (per my rant above). Geogre 11:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sniffing glue! That said, I'm pretty sure everyone else isn't, so please do be civil, eh? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to be. I really, really would, but this has been going on for two years now.  When "consensus" gets inflated to be a requisite 80%, it only takes a couple of people who don't read the article but who vote on "principle" to get a vandal article kept.  Folks mentioned that the nominator has a history of abuse.  Is it possible that his nomination was not "let's get a good article deleted" but "let's get a bad article kept?"  The fact that he's controversial means that folks need to keep a tight grip on their knees and not let them jerk so violently as to type a vote. Geogre 11:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Amen, brother! - Dalbury (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should just keep your own contentious, uncivil rants off the AfD pages. If you don't like the policies upon which WP is built (in this case, the AfD consensus policy) go whine about it somewhere else without insulting people that are voting their own philosophical position. You have absolutely no idea whether editors read the article, vote as blocs, or whatever else. And suggesting that "voting on principle" is somehow wrong is hypocritical, elitist, consdescending and rude. Your vote and rant is every bit as much a "vote on principle" as your largely irrelevant dissertations demonstrate. Referring to an editor's obvious good-faith contribution as a "vandal article" is a clear violation of WP:AGF.--Nicodemus75 16:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's funny. I have been here for long enough to watch "consensus," which actually isn't defined by policy, get informally increased from majority to 70% to 80% to near unanimity.  I have been here watching and voting since VfD had a whopping 30 articles a day to now it's routine 170 a day.  I have been part of defining policy for that long as well.  Do I know if votes are bused?  I certainly do.  Do I know if voting on principle without regard for the article is incorrect?  I certainly do.  If you feel that my comments apply to you, then that is your business, but, given the fact that this church's membership is greater than the town's population, your conclusion that it is "obviously" good faith is as suspect as that article itself. Geogre 19:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Do I know if votes are bused? I certainly do.  Do I know if voting on principle without regard for the article is incorrect?  I certainly do." Please cite your evidence for these outrageous claims. You don't "know" anything. These are wild, uncivil, unsubstantiated charges that do not assuem good faith. I do not "feel that your comments apply to me", I am pointing out the absurd and unsupported nature of your ranting, whining charges. Please refrain from these offensive, uncivil rants particularly when flailing about what you "know" without citing any evidence whatsoever. Having, "been here watching and voting since... [whenver the hell you like]" doesn't make your unsubstantiated claims carry any more weight.--Nicodemus75 20:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please do not make personal attacks. They are against policy, and, indeed, harm your case considerably.  I have seen the evolution of the trends that you are defending as policy, and I can tell you that they are themselves not policy.  They are, in fact, counter to policy.  Vote the article, per the name of the page: articles for deletion.  Do not vote "churches" or "schools" or "notability is not in the guidelines" or "webcomix must stay" or "blogs must go" or anything except the article.  That's clear enough, isn't it?  Geogre 22:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am distubed by an earlier vote in this discussion, where the editor said, "Incomprehensible nomination by a problem user. He/she shouldn't be encouraged." That did sound to me like the editor was basing his or her vote, at least in part, on who nominated the article. - Dalbury (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Del per the inestimable Geogre. encephalon  02:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Geogre... no individual claim to notability. If it housed a relic of the church or had some historical significance, I would vote differently, but as it stands, this is one of probably 100 (if not more) Roman Catholic Churches called "St. John's" and it isn't even as significant as the St. John's church in my old hometown.--Isotope23 03:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN. Serves schools? Now there's a stretch! De nni&#9775; 03:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article makes no claim to notability, and there must be hundreds of other churches by the name Saint John the Evangelist.  Yamaguchi先生 03:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename more specifically to make room for articles on all Saint John's churches. Fg2 04:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Churches, unlike public schools, are private institutions. I can found a church in my back yard, or my mind only.  There must be some notability bar.  Article does not establish notability. Xoloz 16:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete it's a freaking church!  Grue  22:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unverified -- red stucco 09:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Churches are notable. This private/public definition is not at all useful in defining notability.--Mais oui! 13:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - there are far too many churches to be listed on wikipedia. This one is not notable, and also there are probably thousands of other Roman Catholic churches out there called "St John's" (I can think of at least a dozen. --MacRusgail 13:36, 15 November 2005 (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.