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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St george church new panvel[edit]

Contested Prod. Non-notable building, was built less than an year ago. Article doesn't assert its notability, nor is notable enough to warrant its own article. Welt^anschaunng 08:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Welt^anschaunng 08:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Most individual churches are non-notable. I can't find any sources that mention this church in detail, and I can't even figure out what diocese it's in (which might at least help verify the church's existence and location, albeit not establishing notability). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that I have since been able to confirm that the church's diocese does list the existence of a church by this name in this town, and added a link to the directory listing from the diocese web site. Of course, that doesn't establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now : Give some time for the article to expand / expanded by Wikipedians. - Tinucherian (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An AfD usually lasts for five days. IMO, there is nothing notable about this church. Considering it was built only last year, it would have to be the largest church ever, or something like that to be notable. If WP:A7 had included a clause about buildings, this would have been csded right away. Also there are no third party sources to indicate that this church even exists, let alone prove its notability(as per user:Metropolitan90). Welt^anschaunng 10:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability whatsoever; it's just a church, and a fairly new one at that. Not all churches are notable enough for Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here to satisfy WP:N or WP:ORG. For some ideas on what a church article could include to help establish notability, see the (rejected) guideline Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations). Edison (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It gives zero info of the title. It should be included in the main church article (if there is, I could not find anything such as it belongs to which organization, very difficult to know since there is not even a single source also) . The external link given also doesn’t make any logic or any information of “St george church new panvel”. --Avinesh Jose T 10:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The link I put in turned out to be a search result which doesn't result in a copyable link. (I forget what that sort of thing is called.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another NN church. It might be nice to have articles on every church. Of course every one thinks their own church is notable, but most are not. That is why I have not written an article about the church of which I am a member. If retained, the title should be changed to the standard format. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:23, 28 February 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.