Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Luke's Miranda

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 delete, but I'll be happy to userfy if someone asks. - Philippe 19:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St. Luke's Miranda

St. Luke's Miranda (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Nothing here is notable. It is just advertising for a minor suburban church. Grahame (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete nn, vanity page. JJL (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of RS coverage required per WP:ORG and ghits fail to establish notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, just another unremarkable suburban church. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC).
• Delete Fails to meet notability requirements. Dgf32 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing to explain why this church is notable. —Moondyne click! 03:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note to closing moderator - please merge this to the local suburb area following WP:LOCAL, even if the outcome is to delete. At least a couple of lines (and the picture) would be notable for the Miranda, New South Wales page even though a separate article would not be. JRG (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• This doesn't need to be done as a merge as such. If there's anything worthwhile, then it can just be added to the Miranda article, either now or later. There's no need to keep this article around for that. -- Mark Chovain 03:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A merge would ensure that the content is available to use - unlike a delete, where I could no longer access it. JRG (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What is there to merge? The history section possibly, but it is uncited. —Moondyne click! 02:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably if someone did some research (and that involves more than just looking at Google hits) there would be plenty of information there to merge in the history section - most suburban churches in Sydney that are reasonably old have several sources written about them - you just need to look. Unfortunately for most Wikipedia editors it's far more convenient to just write "delete" without thinking about it. I don't have time to do this at this stage, but in my opinion it's better to have the information sitting around for when we can use it rather than have to start from scratch altogether. JRG (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You can request it to be userfied to have it available to work on later if you wish -- but I'm with Moondyne on this one, there isn't anything worth merging since adding uncited material to Miranda, New South Wales about a non-notable church will likely have the information deleted from there. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's only not notable in your opinion because you can't be bothered doing any research. JRG (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2008 (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.