Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Bridget's Kirk

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 now that it's been expanded and its notability has been asserted. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Bridget's Kirk

Delete nothing to indicate that this former church among many in Scotland is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. Please note that Tharnton345 manually removed two DBs from this article on August 2nd. Also note that this user has been creating pages for seemingly every Scottish church he is aware of. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages! --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete makes no attempt establish notability or to verify that this is a former church in Scotland. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 04:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a notable landmark. Tharnton345 (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment can you offer any information or sources to support that it is notable? When faced with an article that offers no evidence that the subject is more notable than any other church, people really have no choice but to suggest deletion. It's to keep Wikipedia clean, credible and not full of articles about every building, statue and landmark in the world. I would rather articles were kept, but when faced with an article like that I really have no other choice and I think others are in a similar position. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 09:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dalgety Bay as the article stands, but Keep if it can be suitably expanded beyond a single sentence. I've found this online, but subjects such as this will be best researched in good old fashioned books. PC78 (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck my redirect !vote as the article has indeed been expanded. PC78 (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been there since the 12th century, so that is notable. Keep if expanded, but otherwise redirect to the Dalgety Bay article. Article is only a few days old and needs work.--Dmol (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's the stub of all stubs. If that's all there is to say about it, then ~~delete~~Keep -- but if it's expanded and source, I'd change my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Still a stub, but that's okay. Somehow, it registers keep with me now for historic impact.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A 12th century church is certainly historic. The government of Scotland seems to agree. Others do too.--Oakshade (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PC78 and Oakshade (after several of these nominations I trust that Tharnton345 has taken on board how to avoid having his/her articles put up for deletion).HeartofaDog (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly seems notable. Expanded it a bit to better demonstrate this with some of the online sources. Now if we could get that book the current church offers, then we'd really be talking. Anyone want to stump up £4? Benea (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable historic building. RMHED (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2008 (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.