Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church Omaha, Nebraska

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 THE LOT. Seems like the consensus is clear on this one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church Omaha, Nebraska

Delete Individual churches are not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 23:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I disagree with the blanket statement above, but I agree that most individual Churches are not notable. This is one of the non-notable majority. Erechtheus 01:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no indication of notability. Gazpacho 01:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:NOT, as this is 60% directory entry (address, schedule) and 40% external links, and not an encyclopedia article. GRBerry 04:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete parishcruft. Recreate the article after this church has reliable sources showing that they have done something notable, like raise the dead. Carlossuarez46 18:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If this is deleted, then every other individual church entry should be deleted as well. Take for instance listed in Category:Churches in Omaha, Nebraska. Most are not notable. They have been allowed to remain.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by slshow (talk • contribs).
  • Comment. Thanks for mentionging that category. I'll check it out. Erechtheus 23:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Update: I have added the proposed deletion template to all but the St. Cecilia Cathedral article. It is the only one that is more than a directory listing or that focuses on an encyclopedic topic (the architectural import of the building the article is about). I'm not saying it's the perfect article, and somebody may indeed make a compelling argument for deletion. I think it at least makes its case for inclusion. Not that I should have to even say this, but I am not a Catholic or any sort of defender of cathedral-cruft but not parish-cruft. Erechtheus 01:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Perhaps instead of prod tags on these areticles, they should be considered as part of this AfD discussion. I feel that they probably should not be deleted unless the consensus is to delete this article. I'll go ahead and add them to this discussion. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 23:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating these articles for deletion for the same reasons as the original.

• Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church of Omaha
• Benson Presbyterian Church
• Covenant Presbyterian Church
• Dundee Presbyterian Church
• Glad Tidings Church of Omaha
• King of Kings Church of Omaha
• Kingsway Christian Church
• Trinity Interdenominational Church of Omaha

-דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 00:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Comment Don't forget every article here as well Category:Churches by city. There is not guidence on deleting individual churches. --Pinkkeith 16:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the added articles if this is proper process. Note I already voted delete on the others above. I don't think it is proper process, and I think it likely that an admin will have to relist this group. I'll leave that to the people who understand it all better. I do want to comment that there seems to be a growing consensus in AfDs I have read that it's inappropriate to remove a prod template only to add an AfD template. This is a different situation than the others, though. I just mention that for any passers by. Erechtheus 07:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have struck out your delete vote above so that you are not counted as voting twice in this discussion. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 03:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as these articles are of extremely poor quality, telling nothing except the name of the pastor, location, and times of services, making them seem like bits of publicity. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
• Delete per Carlos. —Khoikhoi 04:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as all are "directory" style entires, in contravention of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory. Of course without prejudice against creation of well written, referenced articles about these churches. --Mako 05:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all --Peta 05:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Most individual churches are non-notable, and none of these articles make strong claims to notability. --Metropolitan90 06:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Delete all above, nn curhces. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom as unencylopaedic, and per WP:NOT a directory. Ohconfucius 10:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All as per nom. Lankiveil 12:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
• Delete all, please, most churches are non notable. Fram 18:50, 12 September 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.