Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glanzing Parish 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 14:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glanzing Parish Church[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Austria. UtherSRG (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete No indication of being notable. No coverage and no suitable redirect target. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 15:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its been updated and passes WP:HEYMANN. scope_creep^Talk 19:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Neustift am Walde, which (now) includes a section on Glanzing - WP:ATD. A thorough search shows that there are sources for the church not yet in the article - for example, the Historisches Lexikon Wien and Bandion's Steinerne Zeugen des Glaubens. Die Heiligen Stätten der Stadt Wien (1989), pp. 399 f. - which probably would amount to SIGCOV. However,the history of the church makes better sense in the context of the history of the settlement, so for that reason I favour the redirect. Ingratis (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this building is a national listed monument - reference added. Together with the other additional sources, also added, this meets GNG. Ingratis (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as additional reliable sources references have been added to the article that show that it is a national listed monument and passes WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a scheduled historic monument per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has been WP:HEYed - surprised the German article wasn't checked during tagging. SportingFlyer T·C 22:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources added since the nomination establish notability per WP:GEOFEAT as a scheduled historic monument. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:59, 10 August 2023 (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.