Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Trinity Church, Leicester

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 and tag {{local}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:48Z

[edit] Holy Trinity Church, Leicester

Holy Trinity Church, Leicester (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested speedy. Rather spammy article on a local church offering no indication of notability Nuttah68 19:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - article is a stub, and could do with a rewrite, but it seems odd that we should be looking to delete the article of a large church in a large city. As per WP:LOCAL, a better course of action would be to tag with {{local}} or {{not verified}} in the first instance to allow someone with more local knowledge to expand the article, rather than to go straight to an AFD. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to clarify, the article has not gone 'straight to an AFD' but has existed for a month. Nuttah68 20:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, to clarify further, you tagged for speedy delete rather than take a more constructive approach. You've now nominated for deletion. That's what I mean by "straight to AFD". You haven't attempted to improve the article, or encourage others to do so. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Robwingfield: this unfortunately appears to be Nuttah68's modus operandi. The extent of contributions are a list of speedy deletes followed by AFD if the speedy doesn't take hold [1]. Further, despite repeated requests (see User_talk:Nuttah68) of the value of "common courtesy," this user does not notify the author(s) of attempts to delete said articles. Per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion, "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article." It might be that it is easier for some to delete articles rather than attempt to improve articles for the good of the community. Drew30319 03:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The external links in the article offer no more information. Google provides, apart from the church site (already linked), forums and directories. The appears to be no readily available information and the article was created by a single use account. Nuttah68 21:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentI have extended the description, and I intend to add some information about the history and architecture of the church building. pjparkinson 20:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Drew30319 01:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - appears to be a NN local church. -- Bpmullins | Talk 23:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Meets content policies. Keep. Possibly merging with an appropriate locality article might be a reasonable compromise instead. JYolkowski // talk 23:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Delete or Merge - Nice advert, can I visit sometime? But you need to cite some secondary sources to establish notability. Have any books or reports on the cell church movement mentioned the church? Otherwise it needs to go or be merged per JYolkowski until such a time. CyberAnth 02:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (or perhaps merge as suggested by JYolkowski). I've added a bit of historical info. --HJMG 19:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Church merits an article on its past and present role in the city, but perhaps some nn "congregation-only" bits could be pruned? For example, sermons, songs.--HJMG 12:03, 30 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.