Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priesthill (Zion) Methodist

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 delete, due to lack of references to establish notability. I'm going to redirect the article to Lisburn as a viable search term. Contact me you'd like to do a merge there. lifebaka++ 12:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priesthill (Zion) Methodist[edit]

An article on a non-notable church in Northern Ireland. There is nothing significant about this church that would make it more notable than the billions of other churches in the world. The only reference links to the churches offical website and a check for sources found that most of them are databases listing just about every church in the region. Also, the current article is very confusing and is hard to read. Tavix (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, simply being 200 years old isn't good enough. Nyttend (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not asserted, and probably doesn't exist. --Helenalex (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a substantial article, whose content ought to be retained in WP by some means. I do not find it confusing: it gives a coherent hisotry of the church, and I hope that some one will remove that tag. I have just wikified the article a bit and provided some more links (I hope correct ones). I believe the right solution for NN churches is usually to marge them to the town or village where they are. However, this is too substantial an article for that. While it is not well referenced, I have little dount that there are sources that mean that it meets the verifiability standard. In this case, merging it to the article on Lisburn would gravely unbalance that article. I have added this church to its churches section (which was merely a link farm list). It mgith have eben amalgamated with the Methodist Circuit (or district) of which it is part, but we do not appear to have articles on Methodist circuits or districts. However that is a solution adopted for primary schools in some countries (with school boards). For want of a suitable merge target, I say keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If being substantial and coherent was enough, we would have to allow half the articles on garage bands and failed political candidates which get posted. Why does this church deserve to have a page? Adding a sentence or too to the Lisburn article might be appropriate. --Helenalex (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if referenced. local history can be encyclopedic if there is actually any real content, as here. DGG (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But the problem with this is that the content is not verifiable and is unreferenced. Tavix (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until and unless reliable independent sources can be found. A quick google search pulls up nothing but the church website and directory entries. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:39, 12 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.