Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel 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 was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 09:35Z

[edit] Emmanuel Church

Emmanuel Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

DeleteNon-notable church founded in 2006 with no reputable sources. Адам Райли ^Talk 20:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep but remove the material about the church in England to a separate article. The article started with a church in Massachusetts. Then on Nov 7 someone added a church in England unrelated the the original subject, which happened to have the same name of "Emmanuel," which is likely shared by thousands of other churches. As for the Massachusetts church, it has a "Leslie Lindsey Memorial Chapel," which is a memorial to a Lusitania victim, and which may be architecturally notable.page 93 If the architectural notability can be confirmed by independent sources in addition to the cuurch and the guidebook, it should be a keeper. As for the church in England it should be judged separately for its own article if any. The Massachusetts Church was founded in 1860, not 2006.Edison 20:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I removed the nn church and left the significant one. It is well known that the nominator does not read the articles he nominates for deletion as soon as they have "church" in the title :-) --Ioannes Pragensis 21:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Your comment about the nominator is disingenous at best, and in bad faith at worst. He obviously has read the article, as he correctly notes that the article contains no reputable sources. Charlie 22:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If he had read it he would have noticed that there were two churches. Edison 04:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Slowly, Charlie, slowly, the church was founded in 1860 and it was in the article in the time of nomination. During his crusade against "small non notable churches", the nominator nominated even Burnt Church First Nation, a clearly notable band. Read the AfD archives before attacking me, please.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment As I've said in the past Burnt Church First Nation was a pure mistake, and I changed my vote to speedy keep immediately after realising this. I'm sorry, but a church where the only source is the church website, and there is not one thing about the notability of the church...I feel that is to be deleted. I'm going to say this again (as I have several times in the past)...I'm not on a crusade as you put it. I feel these churches (which all but one were found from [Category:Church stubs]] are not notable or verifiable enough for a Wikipedia article. This has absolutely nothing to do with my own religious views (as you can see I left several churches that I felt were notable/verifiable), and I would appreciate if you stopped making it seem that way. Thank you. --Адам Райли ^Talk 16:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And was it also a mistake when you later nominated St Mary's Cathedral Basilica, a cathedral dating back to 1112? When you caused trainwreck of a mass deletion and wasted lots of our time? I can easily tolerate a mistake, but not incorrigibility and dishonesty. Please rethink once more your behavior.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[1] is what the church had when I nominated it for deletion. It made absolutely no reference of it going back to 1112. I fail to see how I was dishonest in any way whatsoever. --Адам Райли ^Talk 21:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It was clearly written there that it is both a Cathedral and a Basilica. Only few churches in Asia have both these distinctions, and any single of these distinctions makes a church clearly notable. If you do not undestand religion, then please do not touch articles about religion and edit articles about things which you know better. Is this advice hard to understand? Shall I repeat it ten times to you? --Ioannes Pragensis 22:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm done dealing with your crap. I refuse to argue with you on this issue any longer. --Адам Райли ^Talk 02:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you and wish you a successfull New Year.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep per Edison. Possible move to Emmanuel Church, Boston. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete unless an independent source can be found to assert notability, not to mention verifiability of the information. Charlie 22:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Edison. Pastordavid 23:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: While checking duplicate names in the National Register of Historic Places database, I found 23 different churches that have the name "Emmanuel Church" or some variation, such as "Emmanuel Episcopal Church". The one in Massachusetts isn't one, but seeing as it was founded in 1860, I think there's enough history to keep it. Regardless, some disambiguation linking is probably in order here. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 01:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. If kept move to Emmanuel Church (Massachusetts). This page really needs to be a dab. Vegaswikian 07:31, 27 December 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.