Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SHAC Community

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 redirect to Anglican Diocese of Melbourne. If you would prefer a different redirect target, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SHAC Community

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NRELORG. UtherSRG (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. UtherSRG (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anglican Diocese of Melbourne where it could be mentioned with a sentence or two. Jahaza (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the SHAC Community page is not a good idea due to the major significance the church organisation has for Anglicans in the Melbourne region. Deleting the Wikipedia site would be a major mistake due to the large size of the church. Please leave it. 101.181.73.28 (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 101.181.73.28. I'd like to be able to keep the article, but we need to be able to show that it's notable, which means we need reliable third-party sources of information about it. If you can point us to those, such as newspaper articles, book citations, or similar, that would help. Jahaza (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I see nothing notable in this, except possibly size for which we have no indication in the article. Otherwise this is a typcial lcoal church article, of a kind we routinely delete. That the article is about three congregations being run together does not alter that. I note there is also a rename proposal, but there must be dozens of churches dedicated St Hilary around the world. If renamed, it would need a place. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kew, Victoria - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why to there and not as Jahaza suggests above? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's more specific and easier to justify a lengthier entry, since the group, or church, is of more significance in the place of its parish than in the diocese, but I've got no problem with Jahaza's suggestion if the alternative is deletion. Ingratis (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting just to solicit opinions on two possible redirects. Please don't make a third suggestion!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We aren't here to advertise for your church services; this is nothing more than a directory listing. Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find BLAR acceptable. While there is nothing stopping anyone from putting some information about SHAC in either of the two redirect destinations, it seems to me that a sentence or two would be too much in the Kew, Victoria article (an article that barely mentions anything with regards to religious organizations). If we follow the "What links here".... SHAC is in List of Anglican churches in Melbourne, which is a See Also entry in the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne article. So it seems to me that this is a better target for the redirect. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd see this as a good opportunity to fill a gap in the article on Kew, Victoria, but whatever. Ingratis (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2022 (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.