Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ottawa churches

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 per consensus (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ottawa churches[edit]

~~Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.*~~ • Freechild'sup? 16:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. • Freechild'sup? 04:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even given that only notable churches should have articles, and that non-notable churches should not be redlinked, this is nevertheless an obviously useful indexing page. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - there's no reason for deleting this that wouldn't apply equally to all lists in Wikipedia. Waggers 20:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments of all the previous respondents who have indicated "Keep" are most telling, whilst the arguments of Freechild would, if adhered to across the board, mean almost all "list of..." articles would be deleted from wikipedia, and are most unconvincing. The deletion that might occur in that last case would be a great loss generally, and most specifically in this case. DDStretch (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment. It may, however, be better to rename the articles to "List of churches in Ottawa" to make the naming convention identical across articles (at least amongst the ones nominated for deletion that have been listed by Freechild today.) DDStretch (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is already a Category:Churches in Ottawa. Let us not be redundant. • Freechild'sup? 23:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I hope you don't mind, but I've corrected your reference to the category as it wasn't showing up in the text, and only a diligent reader would spot the category membership announced) The two things are clearly not identical: the category includes only churches for which there are articles already in existence, whilst the "List of Ottawa churches" includes many more, and perhaps all of them–including the ones without articles at the moment. If redundancy were the only issue to determine the matter, it would have to be the category that should be deleted. But it isn't (the only issue to determine...), so it shouldn't be (deleted). DDStretch (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep A good set encyclopedic information befitting WP. The only thing indiscriminate here is the deletion nomination and the additional misrepresentation of the facts regarding the content of the article. Hmains 03:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is becoming tedious in the extreme to duplicate identical counter-arguments in every similar category Freechild has proposed regarding lists of churches. I suggest people look through the other nominations and note the general issues regarding deletion that people have raised there. In fact, I suggest all of the nominations areb immediately closed and the nominator invited to resubmit them as a "job lot", so they can be considered together. There are about 6 or so of them. DDStretch (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list contains encyclopedic information that is not duplicated in the category, as stated above. It is not "an indiscriminate collection of information" as claimed by Freechild and it is not in breach of the WP:NOT#DIR policy. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this is not a directory of churches. I wouldn't object to a navigational aid, but the category does a better job because it only lists churches that have articles. (And BTW, most of the bluelinked entries in this list look like they're at best marginally appropriate -- none that I looked at had sources and only a couple seemed noteworthy from the text, although there are some good pictures.) Many lists like this one have been deleted for this reason, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana (2nd nomination) for instance, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Malaysia. Mango juice^talk 21:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no general requirement that the objects on a list be all notable enough for an article--in fact, a list is a good way to handle the ones that are not sufficiently notable.DGG (talk) 00:28, 6 December 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.