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. No consensus has emerged to delete the article. (non-admin closure) ——Serial ^# 13:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flemingsberg Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY; it exists but doesn't merit an article. Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this article needs improvements and expansions. The merit argument could be applied to a person, but hardly a construction. Passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You say it passes WP:GNG but give no indication as to how it does so to counter the contention that it doesn't. As for improvements and expansions, assuming you meant that they would help demonstrate passage of WP:GNG, see Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Largoplazo (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A Google search for "flemingsberg church" turns up no coverage in independent, reliable sources. Even in Swedish, searching through all results for "flemingbergs kyrka", I came across only two sources[1][2] that could be seen as contributing to WP:GNG. That, in my opinion, doesn't suffice. Largoplazo (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – the AfD is set to end today so I want to get my "keep" !vote in now even though I have not finished looking for sources. Normally I'd wait until I was done with that in order to be certain. The reasons I very strongly believe that there are good sources to be found are a) there is a doctoral dissertation from 2009 about the church (the congregation and theology rather than the church building, but I still think it is relevant), b) searches in the Swedish newspaper archive database give a lot of hits, where many are only listings of Sunday services but some are not (and I'm sifting through those) ; for instance, the second source provided by Largoplazo above concerns a minor controversy where an extreme-right political movement in Sweden criticised the church for allowing Muslims to pray there, and that has been covered in other newspapers as well, and c) "Flemingsbergs kyrka" is only one relevant search string – "Flemingsbergskyrkan" and "kyrkan i Flemingsberg" are other strings. I have ordered a copy of the dissertation through the library, but for coronavirus reasons it may take a few days before I am able to collect it. --bonadea contributions talk 10:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per bonadea – I would be very surprised if there weren't proper sources for this. In the meanwhile, I've added basic info about the architect and another ref. bonadea, while you're at it, my search for sources found an article in Dagens Nyheter from 1982 about a book then about to be published, Huddinges kyrkor och präster, ed. Bernt Mattsson. It could prove useful, too, I imagine, if you haven't yet come across it as you're sifting through articles. /Julle (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is listed as notable on sv:Flemingsbergs_kyrka#Källor with other structures in the community. If this one in the US we might have it on the National Register. So it is notable due to it having a recognized status. Along with the sources mentioned by the other users above it also meets GNG.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  So you state that something must be 50 years old to be on the National Register, so without any basis for historical significance whatsoever this 44-year-old building is something that might be on it? And then somehow it "is notable" because it "has" a recognized status? WTF? What status does it have??? And no notability on the English Wikipedia is NOT based on an article existing in another, since their standards are not the same as ours and that one lacks any significant independent coverage! Reywas92^Talk 00:59, 24 May 2020 (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.