Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Matthew's Church, Kensington, Adelaide

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep due to no consensus (9 delete, 4 keep from established users, 1 merge, 1 keep from an anon), this is a little short of two thirds with the main discussion being whether or not all churches are encyclopedically notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] St Matthew's Church, Kensington, Adelaide

I have listed this article for deletion because (a) it is incorrectly named, (b) it is more of an advertisement than an article and (c) it is not notable. Cyberjunkie 15:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Disagree on notability, but points a and b are granted. Furthermore "St. Bart's" is probably "St. Bartholomew's". --Scimitar 15:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Churches in Adelaide or somewhere. How is (a) a reason for deletion? Kappa 16:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean article titles are not reasons for deletions? I think it is a reason. It shouldn't be "..., Kensington, Adelaide" just as an article shouldn't be "..., London, England, United Kingdom, Earth, etc". If it is to be kept, it should be either "..., Kensington" or "..., Adelaide".-- Cyberjunkie 16:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So if London was entitled London, England, United Kingdom, Earth you would nominate it for deletion? Kappa 17:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not unless it also qualified under points (b) and (c). Otherwise a move would suffice.-- Cyberjunkie 00:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Adelaide —Wahoofive (talk) 22:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad for a church --nixie 23:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, wikipedia is not a directory. JamesBurns 23:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, some info could be merged into Kensington, South Australia if we got round to creating that. --ScottDavis 00:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, merge useful info to appropriate suburb article, if existing.--Takver 01:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Advertising removed. Now a perfectly valid stub. It should be moved to a better name (preferably Churches of St. Matthews and St. Bartholemew's, Adelaide), but moving while a vfd notice is in place is a no-no. Grutness...wha? 03:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if we can keep every school that ever existed, we should keep every church that ever existed. RickK 05:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with RickK, and definite room for expansion. Alphax ^τεχ 13:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) (forgot to sign earlier)
• Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< 09:49, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as Kappa. SchmuckyTheCat 04:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn.  Grue  17:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why is wikipedia not a directory? If it's an encyclopedia, it should have information about places. It shouldn't matter how obscure or small the place is. There is no harm in having an article on it. There is an article on the Adelaide suburb Golden Grove for example. How is that different? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.26.206.130 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 19 Jun 2005. Kappa 09:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 07:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.