Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitterne Park Baptist 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bitterne Park Baptist Church

Previously prodded . Prod removed, comment was "WP:N states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This church is referred to in a wide range of local history books and other resources. The article just happens to be a stub, and no editor has yet been able to expand the content and add the references in question - but, after all, that's what stubs are all about!" by Waggers. There is no evidence that this appears in a wide range of local history books. Montchav 18:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks more the typical local neighborhood church. No notability asserted - it can be a speedy candidate.--JForget 00:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:N doesn't require a claim to fame, it only requires that "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This is one such source - I just need to find the book in the library again and add the necessary references. The fact that I have yet to do this does not mean the subject is not notable - WP:N says notability is not temporary, and there's no mention of time restrictions in Wikipedia policy. The references will be added in due course; the fact that they're not there yet bears no relevance to the subject's notability. Waggers 12:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Redirect to Bitterne Park - I don't think I'm going to have time to go and find the necessary books again in the near future, and even then might struggle to find enough to justify a separate article. Anything I do find could probably be added to the Bitterne Park article. Waggers 09:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep - let's give Waggers some time to assert notability here as s/he claimed is possible. StaticElectric 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per above. --RucasHost 04:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Waggers citation(s) Fosnez 10:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the creator would please include in the article the author name, book title, publisher, year of printing, and page number range of the relevant information which can be used to expand the article, as he should have done when starting it in the first place. A single unsourced sentence is not a proper stub. If the creator were a newbie writing the article, I'd be inclined to be a bit more flexible, but an admin who's been here a year and a half should know to cite sources and make at least some basic attempt at asserting notability when starting an article. If you haven't got the time to give us a single citation, everyone's better off if you restrain your urge to start the article until you're less busy. cab 11:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if it will be expanded Elmao 11:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Just having been mentioned in a book is not a claim of notability. Is it the subject of an important chapter of the book? Is the church's history gone into? Is it architecturally relevant? Corvus cornix 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete (as an inclusionist Wikipedian and a practising Christian). Local churches are generally not notable for Wikipedia. This article does not have any info about the church other than the district and denomination which are in the title; even the external links only provide address & phone no, not a church web site. I can't imagine a clearer case for deletion. If someone finds significant local history, then recreate the page with it, but this stub is pointless - not even worth merging with the locality Bitterne Park, which I would normally recommend for articles on churches. Fayenatic (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no evidence of notability; with no prejudice against a sourced recreation. I found nothing usable in searching Google, and nothing at all in Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News. GRBerry 02:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:NN. --LAZY 1L 04:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've had a quick check on Images of England and this chuch doesn't appear to occupy a historic buiding. Given that there is no assertion of notability in the article, it's a delete for me. DWaterson 22:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.