Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immaculate Heart of Mary Church (Danbury, Connecticut)

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 redirect to Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Bridgeport#Parishes. Davewild (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculate Heart of Mary Church (Danbury, Connecticut)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination (conversion from PROD) on behalf of Jadeslair (t c). The article is ineligible for PROD having been listed as part of a past mass AfD of various churches. The result of that debate was keep with no prejudice against individual re-nomination.

The reason given for PROD was "not notable". —Darkwind (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Bridgeport#Parishes. If the church itself was older then there would have been a chance that their building would pass notability guidelines somehow, but this is a new parish and church building. (Or at least it's new when you consider how old some churches tend to be.) I can't find where there has been any coverage of this church that would make it pass notability guidelines. I suppose that it could redirect to Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Bridgeport#Parishes, where it is listed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have looked at the previous AFD, which I was unaware of at the time I proposed and after looking at that I agree that one good article is worth more than a bunch of stubs. Thich church does not seem notable as stated above by itself. I believe the page would make a good redirect as stated by Tokyogirl79. Jadeslair (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tokyogirl79: Itsy bitsy spiders are valiant, but empty stubs serve almost no purpose. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2015 (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.