Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirley Parish 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. WjBscribe 23:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shirley Parish Church

Shirley Parish Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No claim of notability. Even having one of Britain's best ever sportsman married here doesn't merit this article existing Montchav 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence shown of coverage reliable sources and I can't find any. The article creator says that "This church is referred to in a wide range of local history books and other resources" but these books have not been cited in six months. The burden of proof is on the person adding the content. Hut 8.5 18:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Change to Keep now that we have sources. Hut 8.5 17:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - Wikipedia has no time limits. A stub is a stub, and just because it's been a stub for 6 months is not a valid reason for deletion. It's included in several reliable sources, including this, and probably this, this, this and this as well. It's also mentioned in passing in this book. As I say, I haven't yet found the time to add the necessary references, but that certainly doesn't mean they don't exist. Furthermore, some of the church buildings are Grade II listed [1], which means that further independent, highly qualified people have deemed them "particularly important buildings of special interest"[2]. The notion that such subjects should be excluded from Wikipedia is preposterous. Waggers 11:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"It's been a stub for 6 months" is not a valid rationale for deletion, no. The rationale for deletion was that the article cited no references, the nominator couldn't find any, and there had been plenty of time given to cite references (six months). The fact that it is a stub has nothing to do with it. I've changed my vote now that sources have been added, but please note this is not a speedy keep candidate. Hut 8.5 17:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, a listed building, and therefore notable on historic architectural grounds if nothing else. DWaterson 13:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the listed building status alone justifies a 'Keep' decisionOrdyg 11:29, 17 September 2007 (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.