Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Savior Lutheran Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Shanel 03:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Our Savior Lutheran Church

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Delete This as a nn-church. Are we going to have an artical on every one of the 100,000 Church's in the world? ---J.Smith 21:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Adrian Lamo ·· 22:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It has an elementary school and a middle school, and as we all know by now, school articles are sacred --Ruby 22:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
It's an article about a church with a school, not a school with a church, and as such, is perfectly fair game if you ask me :)
Adrian Lamo ·· 07:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ruby - why must you ... ;) Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman 22:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I know there are a lot of churches around but i made it for a reason, its a school an a church, and i did a report on our savior when i went to OSLS so i know this will be used by OSLS students when they need to do that report. All my deleted articles are made for a reason, its for people that are not known that need to be because of thier acomplisments and things. I just need more time for research everything i write is true. This Wikipedia is for reference and some people need information on the history of our savior.......timb345 "author of the article"
  • Delete per nomination. SteveJ2006 22:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Most (not all, but most) individual churches are non-notable. The fact that this information might be useful to students of the school affiliated with the church does not warrant putting it in the Wikipedia and distributing it worldwide; it would be better to put that information on the school's own web site (and if it doesn't have a web site, it probably should). --Metropolitan90 01:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete. Noindication that this is more notable than a dentist's office or McDonald's franchise store. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP they have a page on a church in Austin, Texas, why not one on this church? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.213.1.133 (talk • contribs)
    • We have also deleted pages on a lot of other churches, why not this one too? --Metropolitan90 15:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, like people had said this is important and schools are important, i can see potential, if this place wants to be complete why not have this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.58.126 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Metropolitan90 makes a valid point. The school article may meet WP:SCHOOL, but not in its present bundled form here (and also keep in mind that this should not be a primary source for information, such as for reports, as that is not a function of Wikipedia). Also, yes, Wikipedia does have articles on churches (see Category:Churches). I just randomly clicked on one and saw that "[i]t was elevated to become a basilica by Pope John XXIII"... similar statements are made in the other churches' articles to indicate why most if not all of those are notable, whether it is number of members, status within the organization, independently notable pastor/reverend, historical value, or whatnot. This one, objectively, does not have this information, and it is likely because it does not qualify. (Ironically, there is another "Our Savior Lutheran Church" and attached school down the street from me... but of course that does not and should not deserve an article either.) --Kinu t/c 21:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, violation of policy: Timb345 has been altering votes (including my own, as if I wouldn't catch that). See history for details. --Kinu t/c 01:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Reverted User:Timb345's attempts to tamper with votes cast by other users. User has been admonished on user talk page; this should be the only warning the user receives. Blocking is warranted if user tampers further with AfD. — Adrian Lamo ·· 01:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • that was probably not a good idea, i thought it would work, it wont happen agian Timb345, actually i made it even worse for myself, im screwing my self over
  • Everyone makes mistakes at first. Nobody's gonna hold it against you in the long run, if you contribute positively and make good edits :) — Adrian Lamo ·· 02:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a free web host. This information belongs on the church's own website. Nothing in here convinces me that the church would show up in an encyclopaedia. Vote tampering != good karma. Stifle 11:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep They need more churches in here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.213.1.133 (talk • contribs)
      • A user from this IP has already expressed his desire to keep above; therefore, this comment should be discounted. Read the information on "ballot stuffing" above. --Kinu t/c 19:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep It is helping more than hurting, what is it 23 kb, not even. Plus, this guy has a lot of information, we dont want to turn him off from wikipedia, even know he has crap pages, he may have good sources. I dont know, i was just thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.81.232 (talk • contribs)
      • Wikipedia has criteria for inclusion though. "Crap pages" (your words, not mine) is not one of them. Positive edits, however, are encouraged. --Kinu t/c 19:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Non-notable. We're an encyclopaedia, not Yellow Pages --Neigel von Teighen 19:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Individual churches aren't inherently notable. AndyJones 21:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Who makes the over all desiscion, and when —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.216.92.138 (talk • contribs)
    • Well, an administrator will review this discussion about 5 days after it began. He does not count votes as such, but he will try to assess whether the consensus of the wikipedia community is that this article should be deleted. If so, the article disappears, and thereafter it will be "speedied" (deleted on sight) if anyone tries to recreate it. At the moment I suspect he would conclude in favour of "delete" because almost all established wikipedians who have made a comment here are in favour of deleting. Most people voting keep appear to be new, which suggests that they are sockpuppets, or possibly members of the congregation who have come here to sway the ballot. There is no reason to be dismayed if the article goes. Everyone here is still welcome at wikipedia. It is simply that in building an encyclopedia you must must draw a line on what information is worthy of inclusion, and as a matter of practicality we cannot maintain an article for each of the hundreds of thousands of churches in the world. AndyJones 23:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey AndyJones, that was one of the best and most thoughtful things anyone has said, its honet, it answers my question, and regardless of if they delete this or not, i still think you administrators are pretty cool. thanls Timb345

  • Delete nn church with nn school attached. Carlossuarez46 19:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


  • If it means keeping it, it is a school that happens to have a church
  • Still doesn't mean it's notable enough to be included in wikipedia. There are plenty of churches with schools attached, doesn't mean they should all have their own article on wikipedia. The school itself isn't notable enough to be included on its own either. SteveJ2006 02:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep: I think almost any place that is a church (perhaps even a type of historic building!) in any city should be considered notable enought for inclusion.--CyclePat 04:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I am with cyclepat, please keep this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.213.1.134 (talk • contribs)


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.