Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lymm Baptist Church

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lymm Baptist Church[edit]

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

Lymm Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. (Contested WP:PROD) WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 19:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: the chapel is mentioned in the Buildings of England: Cheshire volume, but not substantially: Baptist Church, Higher Lane. Built in 1850. Of stone, with nice Decorated Gothic window tracery. The attached school was added in 1851 and extended a year later. The earlier part has two big gables, the latter gabled dormers and windows with cusped heads. (p.447) I suspect that won't be enough, even alongside the much more substantial piece in Stell. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 16:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I see this news story, which provides RS SIGCOV but does not otherwise build towards GNG due to it being local coverage. This is a pretty neat source with SIGCOV, but it's partially by a congregant and was published by the denomination that the church is affiliated with. A similar problem exists with this. Another local news story can be seen here. There are two images on a local history website showing that the congregation has been around a while, but add nothing towards GNG. This is a missionary org associated with the parish that against adds nothing towards GNG. Ditto for this. This is RS but is local and just says they raised funds for refugees of the war in Ukraine. All in all, the church is real and likely of at least some local historical note, given what Hassocks5489 turned up. Since we can verify it with one independent source and it seems to be a focal point for that region's Baptists, I say it can be considered weakly notable outside of the GNG standard. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, this book only covered the CoE parish in town, so I suppose it's unlikely the building is of architectural interest. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not sure I follow along with the conclusion that the links above show it is a focal point for Baptists in the region. It is a meeting point for sure, by nature of being a church, and presumably the focal point for Baptists in that town. But Lymm itself is just over a half-hour drive from both Manchester and Liverpool, which are presumably host to much more of a true focal point for Baptists in the region, unless we define region very narrowly. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 21:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (With regret) Delete -- There is nothing to indicate this is not a typical local church, no different from many we routinely delete. Personally, I would like to keep many of them, but that is contrary to the consensus. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the numerous reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion. Note that local coverage is permissible for historic buildings, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to add my source assessment table, including the sources highlighted by Pbritti.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Nonconformist Chapels and Meeting-houses in the North of England Yes Yes Yes Per Hassocks5489 ✔ Yes
Buildings of England: Cheshire Yes Yes No Per full entry provided above by Hassocks5489 ✘ No
Is this the busiest building in Lymm?, Warrington Worldwide Yes Yes No Short, very locally oriented article about weekly activities at the church, like painting and a gardening club — arguably not Sigcov in line with WP:AUD ✘ No
Story 81 - Mission on your doorstep, Baptists Together No Non-news website of the Baptist denomination Lymm BC belongs to, based on interview with Lymm BC leader Yes Yes ✘ No
Justice flows in the North West, Baptists Together No See above Yes Notably, per The Baptist Times, the paper was apparently involved in a Pakistani fake news controversy, but that is not relevant for Baptist issues ? I would argue this very short article is more about the North Western Baptist Association annual forum (Lymm BC is just mentioned as the place the conference was located at) ✘ No
OSCAR No Self-written description hosted on another website. No ✘ No
Lymm.uk Ukraine Fund Listing ? May be similar listing as above No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 03:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUD which is part of WP:NCORP does not apply to churches as shown at WP:NCHURCH which states that a church can pass WP:GNG instead of NCORP so that local sources are acceptable for WP:GNG so your chart incorrectly excludes at least 1 local source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This seems like a borderline case that might benefit from a little more time. I'd like to say how impressive all of your detective work is, looking hard for sources that might establish GNG even when you admit that it might fall short. I wish more AFDs had this level of investigation done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The pdf of the historical article "A Brief History..." in the footnotes gets us a long ways towards satisfaction of GNG. The extreme weakness of our WP article makes it difficult to defend as an encyclopedic topic, but there is a legitimate historical article there if someone takes time to research and write it. Carrite (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment from me I've reviewed the historical article linked by Carrite above. I am satisfied that it is a decent example of its type (I can say from experience, having read (literally) thousands of church and chapel histories of wildly varying quality), and in conjunction with the sources I have there should be enough to "Keep" this. I will set about improving the article now and will report back here when I have got as far as I can. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prob Delete - I think the history of this chapel is interesting, but for me that's not enough for a Wikipedia article. I say this as someone who is interested in British nonconformist chapels and who has delved into 100 year old newspaper archives to read about them. For me the issues are a) the architecture is nothing special for the era b) there are hundreds of similar chapels across the UK (for example in my Welsh village there were 8 similar chapels of different denominations of which 4 are still standing, all of which have a history documented in newspapers and mentioned in local church history books) and there's not much which is unique about this one c) there's an unwarranted importance given to small religious congregations which would not be deemed notable in other circumstances. For me, I think there's a line and a small congregation in a building that only dates back to the 1860s of a kind that is frequently seen across the country is not really notable - even if there is a newspaper trail of articles about fetes, preachers and prizegiving ceremonies. JMWt (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep article has sufficient sources now and I would argue that churches are often notable as public buildings that are significant to their community even though I'm not religious. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment from me: If consensus goes with deletion in the end here, please could it instead be moved to my Userspace instead so I can seek other sources: I know various people who are likely to have access to physical/published sources, but would need to ask around. Ta. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Sourcing isn't great, but is over the GNG line IMO. SportingFlyer T·C 15:47, 3 February 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lymm_Baptist_Church&oldid=1202925149"