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. @DBD: You may pursue a merge proposal on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deanery of Alresford[edit]

Deanery of Alresford (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)

Non-notable divisions of Church of England structure containing information which is quickly out of date. Easily merged into diocese or archdeaconry articles. DBD 20:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are broadly equivalent:[reply]

Deanery of Barnstaple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deanery of Cadbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deanery of Christianity (Exeter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deanery of Christianity (Lincoln) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Elham Deanery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deanery of Hartland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deanery of Lafford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deanery of Reading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Romney Deanery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• I am leaning towards keep as these are essentially standalone lists, and possibly the only place in Wikipedia for a parish church that is not notable enough to have its own article. Deaneries seem to exist for many decades, and the churches much longer. Why do you say the information is quickly out of date? Also, would a list of all the churches in a diocese be of a manageable length? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The location of the information would not solve the quickly out of date situation which would be same where ever it is located. Keith D (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Keith D: @DBD: Please explain what gets out of date. Is it the names of the incumbents? The article doesn't have to name them, but if editors choose to, I don't think it is a problem. We seem to have no trouble keep sports team line-ups up-to-date, and they change much more often.
    • I think the nominator's proposal is to move the quickly-out-of-date info to the archdeaconry or diocese articles.
    • Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I think the 'out of date' argument might be a red herring here. While some information, like the name of the rural/area dean, will change, the establishment of a deanery will not. To make any change in a deanery, by adding or removing parishes, the division or amalgamation of deaneries, the raising or closing of deaneries requires a Privy Council order. For this reason, deaneries are often centuries old, and rarely change. The 'notability' criterion has often been aimed at stub articles because the article does not give sufficient information about notability. Yet the creative growth of Wikipedia depends on the existence of stub articles that someone will edit up into notable non-stubs. We allow stubs because of this potential, and because this is not a paper encyclopaedia (space is not an issue). These articles are likely to include information about parishes and churches that do not have their own articles. Deaneries also represent an important aspect of English historical geography: where other divisions have come, gone and changed, these often represent an ancient pattern on our landscape. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Gareth Hughes. There seems to be a tendency to opine that because an entity isn't regularly in the news media or the like that they are not significant. However the very fact that they are not extensively covered elsewhere means that they are more worthy of inclusion of a scholarly work such as en encyclopaedia. Deaneries are centuries old, many have had broadly unchanged boundaries since the 16th century. They are of significance to those carrying out family history and similar historical research as the potential custodians of records touching of births, deaths and marriages. S a g a C i t y (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  Ohc ^¡digame! 06:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's response:

• Keith D & Hroðulf: I do propose to omit the individual priests' names, but I find myself somewhat convinced that there ought to be some information on deaneries. However, I would prefer to merge these into Diocese or Archdeacon articles (while Diocese articles are already fairly substantial and would contain many deaneries, Archdeacon articles are not usually so substantial and would only include a few); especially since this would avoid the proliferation of nigh 700 Deanery of... articles!
• Gareth & Ohconfucious: I meet your protests of significance with a compromise proposal to merge into Archdeacon of... articles.

DBD 15:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but purge content. The deaneries are not something that is here today gone tommorrow (or perhaps next decade), they tend to have a reasonable permanence, though reorganisation may take place. How ancient they are may vary from diocese to diocese, according to whether the structure of rural deans was maintanted from the Middle Ages. Listing their clergy in the articles (as at Barnstable) is inappropriate, becasue the clergy change every few years. The consensus is that local churches are usually NN, which measn that most do not have an article; and this also applies to most of the clergy. If they do have articles, the link should of course be made to it. However, it might be appropriate to add a link to the church website. Barnstable lists two team ministries. It may be appropriate to add details on when the parishes were amalgamated. Lincoln lists a lot of churches, but the link is merely to the saint they are dedicated to. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2015 (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.