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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Bridget's Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No assertion of notability. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was walking around in front of the church this afternoon (using Google Earth) and there appears to be a historical marker of some kind right at the bottom of the handicapped ramp going up into the front of the church. Haven't found out what it says yet. (Oh, and one of the sites for Mobile Historic Preservation Society may have downloaded some malware on my computer). --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The historical marker at the church talks about Casey Jones's baptism, but I haven't seen the full text. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - While it is certainly possible that this church is historically significant for something else, the tangential connection to one notable person doesn't make it notable. A 30-minute search revealed nothing from reliable sources. The Archdiocese of Mobile itself, which includes links to the histories of most of its churches, only includes a basic page without any history for this one. Furthermore, it is not listed on the Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage or the National Register of Historic Places. Unless someone can come up with something really good, I'd say delete. Altairisfar (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, it is listed on the Alabama Register -- it's part of the Whistler Historic District. And, as the Alabama Register lists the "building date" of the WHD as "Turn-of-the-century", then St. Bridget Church may be one of the oldest buildings in the district, as it was built in 1867. I have to agree with you though that on-line sources are hard to come by. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is that historic, then someone should add why it is notable to the article itself and add some sources, even if they aren't online. As someone who has worked almost exclusively here creating articles for historic Alabama properties listed on the National and Alabama registers, I wish that I could find a good reason not to delete. I know that the article claims that it is in the Whistler Historic District, but contributing properties to historic districts that are listed on the National Register are not considered notable for that reason alone. The argument that it is included in a historic district listed on the state register makes an even weaker case. Altairisfar (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's good to know about being in the district not necessarily conferring notability (and we're not even certain that the church is a contributing property!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Churches, even those dating back to 1867, even those which have a poorly documented claim as the baptism site of a railroad employee who famously wrecked his train, are not inherently notable. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The baptism claim is not poorly documented. It's in the book Casey Jones: Epic of the American Railroad [1] by Fred J. Lee (the authorized biography by one of Casey's friends), it's in the church register and it's on the historical marker in front of the church. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although this is a well known Catholic Church, it has no significant reason to be a Wikipedia article. The article in itself has not enough information on the church. There is no reason St. Bridget's Catholic Church should be an article with no real significant historical purpose.--Ltuck3 (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2011 (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.