Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxterley Church
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MadeYourReadThis (talk | contribs) at 13:26, 30 August 2010 (→Baxterley Church: cleaning up, removing extraneous comments from header). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:26, 30 August 2010 by MadeYourReadThis (talk | contribs) (→Baxterley Church: cleaning up, removing extraneous comments from header)
Baxterley 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The result was WITHDRAWN (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Baxterley Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
contested prod. No indication of how this church meets notability guidelines other than its age RadioFan (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]
- St Mary the Virgin Church Uttoxeter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Church of the Resurrection, Hurley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- St Saviour's, Branston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- It is common to have pages about of churches on wikipedia and I have written some like St Mary the Virgin Church Uttoxeter and its just information on the church. MARK BEGG (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no issue with having articles about churches, but they must meet the same notabilty guidelines as any other article. This and one other similar article have been added to the nomination.--RadioFan (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your Problem there is nothing wrong with there articles they are there purely to provide information to the public they are not advertising and are neutral and where else could they go MARK BEGG (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please dont take it personally. The problem is that the subjects dont meet notability guidelines. It's got to be more than just WP:ITSUSEFUL. The other articles you mentioned on my talk page, 2 of them do have some references and likely meet notability guidelines, 1 has the same notability problem as these and will be added to this nomination.--RadioFan (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2 of the articles have ben created today but I will work on them in the future and they should be better in the near future but I can't do it overnight MARK BEGG (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't need to be done overnight. You can make your arguments about why you feel these articles can meet notability standards here. What makes them notable?--RadioFan (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please dont take it personally. The problem is that the subjects dont meet notability guidelines. It's got to be more than just WP:ITSUSEFUL. The other articles you mentioned on my talk page, 2 of them do have some references and likely meet notability guidelines, 1 has the same notability problem as these and will be added to this nomination.--RadioFan (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your Problem there is nothing wrong with there articles they are there purely to provide information to the public they are not advertising and are neutral and where else could they go MARK BEGG (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I will work with MarkBegg (talk · contribs) on bringing
thisthese up to at least a start-class standard --Senra (Talk) 16:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely keep WP:NOTE - this church has a 13th century wooden crozier head found in 1958; the oldest piece of church equipment in Warwickshire. See this none WP:RS here]. I will be searching for a RS to back this up --Senra (Talk) 18:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as grade II listed building. Keith D (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it has a connection with Hugh Latimer MARK BEGG (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- If not kept, all these should be merged with the place where they are - Wood End, Atherstone in the case of Baxterley. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All --these all seem like historic churches to me. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. The church is a Grade II listed building which according to English Heritage is "nationally important and of special interest". That alone IMO ensures its notability. There is scope for expanding this into an excellent article (and it appears that work has already been started on this).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This argument applies only to the church of the title, Baxterley Church. Are all four churches to be discussed on this page? If so it is a bad idea, because each church has its own points of notability (or not). If the others are on separate pages, I apologise; please direct me to them. One of the churches is Grade II* listed! I am off out and will return to this page later today.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- support above comment. The churches should have their own discussion page. I would go further and say that this AfD has not been carried out as per policy by the nom. I accept that at first glance the article as it appeared to the nom looked like a possible PROD (not an AfD); any more knowledgeable editor to this subject area would be alerted by the 12th century to look deeper and perhaps more gently coach MarkBegg. This AfD is needlessly aggressive and may even have chased away an editor who just needs a little more guidance --Senra (Talk) 09:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This argument applies only to the church of the title, Baxterley Church. Are all four churches to be discussed on this page? If so it is a bad idea, because each church has its own points of notability (or not). If the others are on separate pages, I apologise; please direct me to them. One of the churches is Grade II* listed! I am off out and will return to this page later today.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn, in light of information added to the article as well as pending information mentioned above (such as status as a listed building in the UK).--RadioFan (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2010 (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.