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. This is close to a keep, but several of the keep arguments make no reference to policy, and seem to invent their own criteria for notability. Some of the delete arguments, however, fail to address the fact that there are sources and thus at least a possibility of notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Holy Trinity, Singapore

[edit]

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

Text book case of WP:BRANCH where the organization is notable but the local church building is not inherently notable. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest otherwise. Mkdw ^talk 06:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep - this is the only 1 of 6 AfDs where sources did not immediately pop up in Google Books. Presumably because it is new 1988, even though "13,720, the largest parish in Singapore" - it seems silly to delete this simply because it is newish. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Straits Times article isn't overwhelming, it seems pretty pointless deleting 1 out of the 6. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I challenge the nominator to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this entry and others that have been nominated for deletion are not "inherently notable" enough to be on Wikipedia. There are many sources abound and the real question is this, has any research been done to warrant such a nomination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Pig (talk • contribs) 05:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept. Nothing is inherently notable on Wikipedia. Mkdw ^talk 20:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TB randley 13:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:N. Local church congregations are not inherently notable. Edison (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the largest Catholic congregation in Singapore, plus one of the largest church buildings in Singapore with a distinctive $8m 1988 building complete with waterfall reported in the Straits Times is not just any church congregation. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N and WP:ORG do not grant inherent notability for the largest, smallest, newest, oldest, or shiniest X in location Y. "Ooh, they spent 8 million for their building" (not that much for an institutional building) and "It has a waterfall" (or a trapeze, or an alligator pit) also do not guarantee a Wikipedia article, any more than "ILIKEIT!" does. Please stick to arguments based on relevant guidelines. Edison (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems regionally notable, with local coverage. Systemic bias. Largest and oldest in a region do reflect on notability. Shiniest, less so. Having the largest congregation in the region is certainly relevant. – SJ + 05:22, 25 March 2013 (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.