St. Joseph Catholic Church (Ironton, Ohio)

St. Joseph Catholic Church (Ironton, Ohio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A Catholic church in a small Ohio city. Average churches aren't notable, and everything I can see makes me think this is thoroughly average. Nyttend (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see the notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. I don't immediately see anything to indicate the church is particularly notable, but there is no reason the info can't be covered at the diocese page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Steubenville. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to diocesean page as per above. John Carter (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Steubenville. There's not enough here for a standalone article, but there is enough to warrant a merge. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability due to the lack of multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this non-notable local church. Noting here to merge anywhere else. Springnuts (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hun? There are two paragraphs of sourced information which can legitimately be merged into a more general article (in this case the diocese) by policy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it common to merge pages like this into the diocese page? It sounds like a better idea than deletion; if it is common, I'll suggest a merger next time instead of AFD. Nyttend (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say it is common per say, as church articles don't come up all that frequently. However, it certainly would be consistent with the way similar classes of content are treated (the most obvious example being elementary schools being merged into district pages) and would also be consistent with WP:PRESERVE. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If ordinary Roman Catholic churches do not meet the criteria for notability, why is there a dedicated stub category encouraging the expansion of hundreds of individual churches with no more significance than this one? Ithizar (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because for notable buildings that is an appropriate category. Now does every article in there belong? I don't know the answer, but a quick look says that most are not about buildings and most are not likely notable. Anyone want to do a bunch of merges? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like a good idea, although we ought to be a careful to avoid deleting/merging articles on churches listed on the National Register of Historic Places — the process of listing on the Register includes the production of enough sources that all Register-listed sites are notable. Nyttend (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable as a parish or a building. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Ironton, Ohio. This is usually the best solution for local churches. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]