Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Alvaston parish church

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  keep. Obviously no consensus to delete. I don't see an active consensus for any of the other options, so I'm defaulting to keep and everything else can be handled elsewhere. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Alvaston parish church

 * – (View MfD)

Non-notable church. I'm all for articles about historical buildings. But, this is a draft that's not going anywhere. I've declined it twice for lack of WP:SECONDARY sources. At one point it was G13'd, and then refunded upon request by the draft's WP:SPA creator who stated, "Please restore the page as I intend to work on it." and then never actually touched it in the ensuing six months. I just made another pass looking for sources, and could not find any. It's time to let this one go. Perhaps just userfy it to keep AfC volunteers from having to keep investing administrative time on it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note, I've pinged Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Possibly userification would be a good idea. I don't think the present building is notable. I continued the present article because the earlier building and its history probably is notable, along with every historic building that no longer exists. There are almost certainly good historical sources, but I can't say that it's among my priorities for working on now.   DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Neutral - Needed declining, and was declined. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep because I am partial to history. I think we keep it in draft. Lightburst (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or userfy I wouldn't be at all surprised if the topic is notable, all it would take is one local history or specialist church publication to cover it, there's a good chance of that happening for a church which is this old. The topic isn't one which is likely to be well represented on the internet. Even the nominator wrote "this is probably notable" . I don't think we should be getting rid of drafts on a topic which is probably notable just because the creator hasn't been able to get it up to scratch yet.  Hut 8.5  09:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with long-lived drafts as long as somebody's working on them and showing some vague semblance of making progress. But, asking for a G13'd draft to be refunded because you want to work on it, and then failing to do so for the next 6 months is just making work for AfC volunteers.  Let it live in their userspace if they want to hoard it forever.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If nobody works on it after six months then it will be deleted under G13 again. As a regular at REFUND I can tell you that if you repeatedly ask for a G13ed draft to be restored and then don't improve it then people will start asking what changes you plan to make to the article, instead of just taking your word for it. If it's deleted through MfD on the other hand then it will be much harder for anybody to get it restored to work on it, even somebody else who has better sources. I don't see how this is making more work for AfC volunteers, since it wasn't resubmitted to AfC after being restored, and it would still be deleted under G13 if it was userfied.  Hut 8.5  15:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Userfy per Hut 8.5 and WP:DUD. Also, clear the afc template to remove the arbitrary time limit. Anyone who can might consider giving the original author advice regarding how to get it up to mainspace par (or even help out). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 08:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename to Draft:St. Michael & All Angels, Alvaston, a wiki-search for that name shows it's already mentioned in Henry Isaac Stevens and Charles Lloyd (organ builder). Its image is the lead image on Alvaston. The article needs to refocus on the church (building) & its history rather than the church (congregation), but that calls for additional content rather than removal of what's there. Cabayi (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2020 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.