Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zion Hill Missionary Baptist 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Zion Hill Missionary Baptist Church
Article about church that doesn't seem exceptional or encyclopedic. tregoweth 09:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This notable Baptist Church in Rochester is large and significant enough that the street was re-named for the founding minister upon his death.--Nicodemus75 09:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Nicodemus. Kappa 12:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Per N75. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, no greater notability than any other church on any other street in America.--Isotope23 17:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Durova 20:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, only built in 1982, no more notable than a typical church. -- Kjkolb 20:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep No reason why wikipedia can't cover churches thoroughly. CalJW 23:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn church, eponymous avenues notwithstanding. Dottore So 00:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, one of many, many, many, many churches in the US alone, with no individual claim to anything more than minor notability on an extremely local scale. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, no more reason to keep this then any other church.Gateman1997 01:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Just another church.
I also find it interesting that certain individuals show up to vote 'keep' only on schools and churches, and do not bother to make their voices heard, pro or con, on any other issue here. I wonder why there is such a fixation on these two institutions. Perhaps Cal or Nicodemus will enlighten me. Perhaps not.Denni☯ 03:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)- Frankly, this is a stupid and pointless attack on our votes. You wonder why there is intransigence and difficulty in reaching compromise when you make comments of this nature? I can see that your supposed good-faith at WP:SCH is feigned. Your charge that "individuals show up to vote 'keep' only on schools and churches, and do not bother to make their voices heard, pro or con, on any other issue here." and then name myself and Cal is both demonstrably false (I vote on a variety of AfDs) and certainly uncivil. Maybe you should devote some time to reading the damned instructions at WP:AFD instead of making these offensive and snide remarks:
- "You don't have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if:
- a nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar.
- consensus you agree with has already been formed."--Nicodemus75 05:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- "You don't have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if:
- Who are you accusing of being "some individuals"? This comes off as a sort of half-hearted attack, and no small wonder Nicodemus is annoyed. (I would be, too.) Ask someone specific to stop doing something, or stop making veiled accusations, please. That's part of assuming good faith. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Frankly, this is a stupid and pointless attack on our votes. You wonder why there is intransigence and difficulty in reaching compromise when you make comments of this nature? I can see that your supposed good-faith at WP:SCH is feigned. Your charge that "individuals show up to vote 'keep' only on schools and churches, and do not bother to make their voices heard, pro or con, on any other issue here." and then name myself and Cal is both demonstrably false (I vote on a variety of AfDs) and certainly uncivil. Maybe you should devote some time to reading the damned instructions at WP:AFD instead of making these offensive and snide remarks:
- Delete per nomination. Individual churches are generally non-encyclopedic. --Metropolitan90 05:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Churches, unlike public schools, are private institutions. I can found a church in my backyard or my mind. There must be a notability bar, and this doesn't meet it. Xoloz 16:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- This church has its own building, unlike a church in your mind or your backyard. Kappa 16:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn. Grue 22:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete having own website is insufficiently verifiable --redstucco 10:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. *drew 01:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn church --Jaranda(watz sup) 18:54, 16 November 2005 (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.
