Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland churches (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. In my personal opinion, this is a clear violation of NOTDIRECTORY. However, eveb after 2 relists, there clearly is no consensus here. If no improvement is forthcoming, this could be taken to AfD again after a suitable waiting period of, say, 3 or 4 months. Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland churches

[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)

Fails WP:NOTDIR as the only source is a link to a directory and only two have articles. Churches wouldn't pass WP:NCHURCH and are not inherently notable just because they exist. The article passed a previous AfD back in 2008 on the basis is that churches are as notable as schools in a district are - this isn't and still isn't the case. Ajf773 (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that NOTDIR is not violated (there are not ephemera like telephone numbers) and except for fact that some items on the list are proven Wikipedia-notable by having articles and others probably being individually wikipedia-notable and except for the fact that further others can be appropriately covered in a list-article. --Doncram (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTDIRECTORY. Catrìona (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above; a list of largely non-notable churches Spiderone 10:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable directory. Reywas92^Talk 21:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a valid split from the parent article and a notable, valid and encyclopedic subject for a list article Atlantic306 (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. This is a directory of non notable churches, plain and simple. Ajf773 (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge/redirect to Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland, where the few notable examples can be listed/linked if they aren't already (Category:Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland churches has three articles apart from this list). I don't see a reason why we'd list every nonnotable church for this organization rather than summarizing with numbers and geographic distribution, and notable/significant examples only. postdlf (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is exactly how we ought to cover churches that are not idependently notable: listify them, as one of the alternative to deletion in the guideline WP:GNG. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if they aren't notable, we don't list them. Ajf773 (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland. That article is not too long to accommodate this list per WP:CSC. However if that article is regarded as being so short that accommodating this list would give it unseemly prominence, then consideration should be given to providing an external link to the sole source instead. --Pontificalibus 11:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The list is rather long and with only two entries with articles (and even then they don't appear notable) I don't support a merge on those grounds either. An EL on that target article might be sufficient. Ajf773 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there are 117 according to the EL already on the Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland article, so a further EL is not needed. Ajf773 (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DGG, are you able to clarify your vote? It looks like you voted keep but you havent made it clear. Thanks Nightfury 10:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. (I used a keyboard macro that should have expanded, but didn't ) DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG's comments. The article contains a number of blue links which shows the possibility of making the article pass WP:NLIST. Whether the listed names would pass WP:NCHURCH or not, it is a content related matter and should be discussed on talk page that what should be listed and what should be omitted. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has just two. There is no need to discuss it on talk. Ajf773 (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if only a few notable churches are in the list, this article has the potential to be expanded to discuss the notable ones more. Pages like this could easily sit around for a while before someone with an interest in the topic picks it up and starts working with it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notable churches are best discussed in detail in their own articles. Ajf773 (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Almost entirely split votes aside from one merge comment. Recent comments lean towards keep, though I'd like to see more reasoning shown. If anyone is unhappy with this relist, let me know on my talk page and I will revert it if a good reason is provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 01:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete because only two of these churches are even notable. The rest of “list” is just text. If an article doesn’t meet GNG it shouldn’t be an article. The two churches here that do need to stand alone. Trillfendi (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete this is clearly a directory with no clear potential for improvement. Any content about the few churches which are notable on this list should be done in the parent article. Not seeing a need for redirect either as readers are far more likely to be looking for the parent article over this one anyway.MadeYourReadThis (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~^{Already voted above} More reasoning (I voted before, not sure if it is allowed to vote twice). Specifically, this is not a blatant attempt at self-promotion of an organization, which is the whole point of WP:NCHURCH and the related policy for schools. As for whether it is notable, if you type "baptist" and "ireland" into Google scholar, you get a variety of third party sources. So the topic is notable. Why was this article created? Probably because someone didn't want to clutter up the main denominational article, and instead link to the list through a Wikilink. Sure, if the original author knew how to make a collapsable template, he or she might have done so, but this was easier, and it works too. Why can't you have multiple ways to do something?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're misunderstanding what this actually is, particularly given how you say you searched for it (this isn't a list of all baptist churches in Ireland). This is a list of churches affiliated with the Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland. No one is disputing here that this organization is notable. The question as I see it is what the informational value is of listing out all the nonnotable individual churches that belong to this organization, and I haven't seen an argument for doing that yet. I'm tending to view it more like a list of companies, which we would tend to limit only to notable examples. postdlf (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Info is factual and verifiable. Good for records. Wikipedia also has lots of "List" pages like this. Mgbo120 (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might be verifiable, but that isn't the point of this discussion. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ajf773 (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that some here are proposing that notability must be regressive to the sub-parts of an article. It makes no sense to assume every word, topic, organization, etc. of wikipedia must be notable for an article to be notable. Or even that there must be a percent like 5%, 10% ect. must be notable. See Münchhausen trilemma for more on regression and the alternatives to using it. Resolving the Münchhausen trilemma is an epistemological question. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a philosophy, so assumptions (even if practical and philosophically naive) about which fork of the trilemma to come down on should have no basis in determining an article's deletion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See instead sophistry. I’ll mark your argument down as “why not?” Which is not very convincing, nor specific at all to the content or subject. postdlf (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably could/should be included onto Template:Lists of religious worship places. Lists of "notable" churches, i.e. lists of individual churches which are themselves Wikipedia-notable (have Wikipedia articles) plus select other churches having supporting references about them, are usually/always notable in Wikipedia. Here, at first glance it may seem there are no links to any individual churches' articles, but in fact there are already 2 or 3 bluelinks to existing church articles. See also Category:Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland churches. It would help if there were more. But if we have some examples in a category, as we do here, then there can/should be a list-article, basically, by wp:CLNT.

Note, a recently closed AFD (deletion nominator was the same as here?) was for List of road churches in Finland, where i voted keep based on establishing that some/many/most were individually notable (based on sources discussed, although seeming not to have wikipedia articles yet) and then eventually 40 or so links to new or already existing Wikipedia articles were added and it was closed Keep.

Here, probably some of these are historic churches, perhaps listed on an Irish national historic register, or otherwise individually notable from any kind of coverage? Could we add any detail with sources about any of these? But we have already several having articles, so keeping the list is obviously the correct thing to do. If editors want to discuss list-item notability, i.e. whether its coverage should be limited to fewer items than those already being bluelinks, then that is a matter for Talk page discussion, not AFD. --Doncram (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, are these all the AofB churches in Ireland? are they all notable? if not, why are they included in the list? ie. WP doesn't have lists of all the residents/businesses/schools/libraries of every community, just the notable ones, indeed there are numerous communities that don't have a seperate list, they have a section list, (sometimes) its only when that section causes the article to be out of balance that a breakout list occurs, why are churches any different? so whats the problem with having a section called "Notable churches" within Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland, include the churches that have their own article, and the churches that are just awaiting an article ie. the ones alluded to by Doncram above (with a couple of appropriate references of course) ps. i'm a Merge. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two on the list with articles and no other sources, as of now, to signify notability for all the rest. Ajf773 (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NOTDIRECTORY. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: While the two bluelinks happen to remain bluelinked they should be listed somewhere, so either keep or merge/redirect is appropriate. The problem is that the bluelinked pair appear not to meet any kind of notability criteria sufficient for retention as articles. So, on the presumption that that is the case: get them deleted first, include https://www.baptistsinireland.org/churches/ as an external link at Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland and put in an anchor there, try redirecting this article there (there's probably some rule that IAR can be applied to), and if that's reverted then renominate, at which point some of the arguments in this AFD will have been nullified, and the blacklinked list will be clearly less useful than the church's own directory. So I guess that's a vote for "Keep or Merge but Delete or Redirect". ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:28, 25 January 2019 (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.