- 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 - crz crztalk 15:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both places already have existing articles. This is a contested speedy, so bringing it here. Denni talk 22:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for a number of reasons. Firstly the nomination is incorrect, the sees don't have their own individual entries, they are recently created redirects to the general region. Even if they did the dioceses could be seperately noted from the towns. Secondly dioceses (IMO) have inherent notability, and this goes double for dioceses that are not titular. Finally, they are listed in the Catholic Encyclopedia which gives them notability even if it isn't accepted that dioceses have. Wikipedia can't be regarded as comprehensive if it excludes subjects of significant articles in major encyclopedias. JASpencer 22:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per JASpencer. Nomination is mistaken, as they do not have articles on their own. I agree with JASpencer that dioceses are notable enough to have articles of their own, and these have already been included in another encyclopedia. Uppland 07:25, 26 November 2006 (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.