Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wyre Forest Community 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 delete. W.marsh 02:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wyre Forest Community Church

Unnecessary and Incorrect, see Talk Page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anaesthetic (talk • contribs).

• Strong Keep: Church appears notable. Content diputes should be dealt with on talk page, not a reason to delete. Savidan 02:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. As described, there is nothing notable about an indivual church that has an internal break. I don't pretend to take a stand one way of the other on how the church formed, and its too bad the nomination cited incorrect facts because that sets a bad tone. But delete as non-notable. Thatcher131 02:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Thatcher131. I don't see any claim to notability in the article. --Thunk 03:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn.Blnguyen 03:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral, but: what does "incorrect" mean? Neither "unnecessary" nor "incorrect" are grounds for deletion that I know of. —rodii 03:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can demonstrate context that would be notable to anyone not directly involved in this church.--Isotope23 03:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. One of thousands of community churches, of no more importance or uniqueness than a Wal-Mart or a gas station. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, 50-year old church. Kappa 10:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is Britain, where 50-years-old is considered "new-fangled", not the US, where 50-years-old is akin to antiquity. GWO
    • 50 years old is enough to be considered an established institution in any country. Kappa 11:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense inteded against this particular church, but established is not the same thing as Notable. My church is 120 years old and it doesn't deserve an entry in an encylopedia either. Thatcher131 14:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well I'm very sad that you won't allow wikipedia users access to information about your 120 year old church, and I think it's pretty dubious to claim to offer us the sum of human knowledge while denying us these things. I try to vote with my conscience. Kappa 18:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm very sad you'd want to waste the time of WP contributors with maintaining articles about largely interchangable public buildings of little note. "Human knowledge" is not merely the sum of all data. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• If I care about it, it's knowledge to me. It seems like of a waste of time to destroy than to maintain. Kappa 13:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, the article on this church does not provide evidence of notability or significance, irrespective of the standard of this nomination. Sliggy 10:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a notable church. David | Talk 11:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not needed, church is insignificant. Anon | Anon 16:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree, the church is in my area and its not a church that is widely recognised. Sovvy | Sovvy 17:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article doesn't contain an assertion of notablity for the church.  (aeropagitica)  19:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn per my own research on the church. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per above. -- Kjkolb 20:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per A Man in Black Mattley ^(Chattley) 21:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per why the hell not? Paul Carpenter 21:36, 14 February 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.