Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christ's Church Cathedral (Hamilton)

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christ's Church Cathedral (Hamilton)

Unnotable church, lacks independent sources, looks like vanity for Donald M. Kendrick. I tagged this with the notability tag hoping to see improvement, but the creator of the article removed it and left a rude comment on my talk. This church lacks historic notability and fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). The one "news link" is from the Anglican church, which is tied to the church itself.

I searched "'Christ's Church Cathedral' Hamilton oldest" and got 40 hits none of which claim it is the "oldest".Arbusto 02:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Creator removed afd tag four times.[1] Arbusto 02:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me suggest to you that if this happens in the future with another Afd, warn the user using the right template from WP:WARN, which is a menu of warning templates. The creator has been warned now about not removing the template. I'm going to check this out because this page was one I was tracking as one that might require an AfD myself. My "vote" will be listed once I have reviewed material. Erechtheus 02:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep:'Oldest Anglican cathedral in Canada' asserts notability. I've inserted a demand for a citation of that statement. Hornplease 02:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If that's true and notable, it'd be on a historic registry. Also you'd think their website would mention that, but it doesn't.[2] Arbusto 02:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep:'Oldest Anglican cathedral in Canada' asserts notability. An important ecclesiastical centre for the Niagara Peninsula, Christ Church was erected in stages, its form altered as the size and prominence of the congregation increased. Begun in 1835 as a parish church, the frame building was expanded in 1852-54 with the addition of a stone chancel and nave extension designed by the renowned Toronto architect William Thomas. The present nave, fashioned by Henry Langley, a specialist in church architecture noted for his masterly High Victorian Gothic designs, was completed in 1876, a year after Christ's Church was designated the cathedral for the newly-formed Diocese of Niagara. Although the building has undergone various alterations and renovations since then, notably the extension of the chancel in 1924-25 it retains its handsome 19th-century character. Source: http://www.waynecook.com/ahamilton-wentworth.html Johnbrownsbody 02:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: That link doesn't say its the "OLDEST". Thus, the lead sentence that "Oldest Anglican cathedral in Canada asserts notability" is deceiving on two accounts. There is no source for the oldest catherdal claim, there is no source this is on the Canadian historical registry. If these links are supplied it would be an obvious keep, but its lacking WP:V now.Arbusto 02:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Are we talking about oldest Cathedral congregation or building? In the former case, it would be Cathedral of St. John the Baptist (St. John's) in Newfoundland, which dates to 1699. In the latter case, it would be hard to say, since so many have been renovated, have burned down (or in the case of St. Jude's Cathedral (Iqaluit), destroyed by arson]], and/or have been rebuilt/expanded that it's a tough call. Carolynparrishfan 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I searched for something that would cement the "oldest" status and couldn't find anything. If we can get a citation on that, I'll happily reconsider. Erechtheus 02:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Keep as a nicely documented article that demonstrates the subject's notability. Erechtheus 17:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Here's another Cathedral of St. John (Saskatoon) "first Anglican parish" (this one of Saskatoon) created by the same user. Arbusto 03:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep ...as a historical site. · XP · 03:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I want to keep historical site articles. What event or people are tied to it to make it historic? Arbusto 05:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as a historical site; being the oldest Anglican cathedral in all of Canada suggests notability. Yamaguchi先生 04:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Source for claiming it is the oldest cathedral? Arbusto 05:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per XP. Resolute 04:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per XP. --Ineff a able3000 05:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to fail WP:RS. --Aaron 05:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - though it should be tagged "Unreferenced". There are less than 30 Anglican cathedrals in Canada - List of Anglican cathedrals in Canada - I think all deserve articles. -- Beardo 09:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That is according to a list made by the same creator List of Anglican cathedrals in Canada a few days ago. You are saying because its one of 30 on a WIKIPEDIA list of a sect of an episcopal denomination it gets an article. Perhaps you can cite that? Are all List of cathedrals in Canada getting an article? Arbusto 17:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So? The United States is 300 million people, should every government building get an article too? Arbusto 20:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC) -- How many of those were built in 1835 ? But even so merge, not delete. -- Beardo 20:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The Anglican Church in Canada has between 800,000 to 2 million members - I am not sure what "sect of an episcopal denomination" is supposed to mean. The Anglican Church in Canada is clearly notable - the question is on what basis do we decide which of its places of worship deserve separate mention. If not, then this should be merged into Anglican Diocese of Niagara not deleted. But I think it should remain. -- Beardo 18:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Historic Hanover Courthouse was built in 1735, was the site of a significant case Patrick Henry was involved with, and was also the site of an important battle. The battle has an article. The locality has its article. Are you suggesting that the building itself should have an article?Erechtheus 22:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not ? -- Beardo 22:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that there are likely a good number of very old buildings in some European locations that certainly don't merit articles. Beyond that, there does seem to be an issue with the 1835 date due to the expansion of the facility. Thanks for answering my query. Erechtheus 23:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Cathedral church. Claims to be oldest Anglican church in Canada. Taken "notably" liberal stands within Anglicanism. That's three assertions of notability before XP's point. JASpencer 16:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment And the liberalism assertions is referenced, even if the other two claims were to fall. JASpencer 16:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Check the googles for "Christ Church Cathedral" Hamilton (46,000) or Ontario (~40,000). Sounds like the article is simply at the wrong title (or it's at the right title but the rest of the world doesn't know it!) Guy 22:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. All cathedrals are inherently notable. -- Necrothesp 01:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Even the Stained Glass Cathedral? Erechtheus 01:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly preferable to numerous pages about minor characters in Japanese anime or towns in video games. -- Beardo 07:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • Comment. No, because that's not a cathedral! It just calls itself a cathedral. A cathedral by definition is the seat of a bishop. -- Necrothesp 12:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The following are the dates of Canadian Anglican cathedrals apart from those of dioceses created in the 1880s and later on the prairies, the Arctic and northern Ontario:

• Holy Trinity Cathedral, Québec City — 1804 (first Anglican Cathedral to be built outside the British Isles; the designation as to Christ’s Church, Hamilton should be oldest in Ontario, oldest in anglophone Canada)
• Christ’s Church Cathedral, Hamilton — 1835
• St Paul’s Cathedral, London, Ontario — 1846
• St James’s Cathedral, Toronto — 1853
• Christ Church Cathedral, Fredericton — 1853
• Christ Church Cathedral, Montreal — 1859
• Holy Trinity Cathedral, New Westminster — 1859 but lost cathedral status in 1929 when the see city was transferred to Vancouver
• St Peter’s Cathedral, Charlottetown — 1869 but not raised to cathedral status till 1879
• Christ Church Cathedral, Ottawa — 1872 but not raised to cathedral status till 1896
• Christ Church Cathedral, Vancouver — 1895 but not raised to cathedral status till 1929
• St George’s Cathedral, Kingston — 1828 but destroyed by fire in 1899 and rebuilt 1900
• Cathedral of St John the Baptist, St John’s — 1850 but destroyed by fire 1892 and rebuilt 1893-1905
• All Saints Cathedral, Halifax — 1910
• St John’s Cathedral, Winnipeg — 1926
• Christ Church Cathedral, Victoria — 1929

One does wonder why this cathedral article in particular is singled out for deletion when it is part of a series on Anglican cathedrals in Canada — and no, I did not create that list; I did rename it from a somewhat cumbersome earlier title. Are cathedrals not inherently notable? At least that which is the second oldest in Canada, the oldest in anglophone Canada and one of only three pre-Confederation Upper Canada/Canada West cathedrals? The issue of older colonial buildings existing in the USA is of questionable relevance: anglophone Canada is of much more recent establishment. Masalai 19:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• keep I'm inclined to agree that all cathedrals are notable, plus the issue of same-sex blesings (along with the ordination of gay clergy and bishops e.g. Gene Robinson) are things currently threatening the worldwide unity of the Anglican Communion. David Underdown 07:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep We should not even be entertaining this farce of an AfD. It's a Cathedral for God's sake. I also think Arbusto has some explaining to do for referring to the Anglican Church of Canada as a "sect". Carolynparrishfan 17:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment As a member of the Anglicanism project, I take offence that our work is being hampered by rogue editors who want to randomly delete articles about major cathedrals. Carolynparrishfan 17:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment. Arbusto called it a sect because that's what it is in at least one widely used sense of the word. I'd suggest you peruse WP:AGF. As to your project, everything in Wikipedia is subject to processes like AfD. If that is offensive to you, perhaps the Wikipedia project isn't for you. Erechtheus 17:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with WP:AGF, thank you very much. It does not mean to assume good faith in spite of all evidence to the contrary. The use of the term "sect" is at best unfortunate and misleading. I am curious as to what this "widely used sense" is: Wiktionary provides one definition - "A cult or religious movement, a group sharing particular (often unorthodox) political and/or religious beliefs." The connotation here is quite strong, even if the denotation could be argued to be harmless. Carolynparrishfan 17:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

1. a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination. Erechtheus 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Connotation, connotation, connotation! Carolynparrishfan 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF, WP:AGF, WP:AGF! Erechtheus 19:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if you look at Sect you see "A sect is in a non-Indian context generally a small religious or political group. Sects have many beliefs and practices in common with the religion or party that they have broken off from, but are differentiated by a number of doctrinal differences. In contrast, a denomination is a large, well-established religious group...". So to follow AGF, we come to the conclusion that the deletion proposal came from an editor who didn't really understand the subject at hand anyway. -- Beardo 22:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Cathedral buildings as a rule are notable, and this one clearly has a history, both architectural and ecclesiatical. Deleting it as collateral punishment for Donald M. Kendrick is way out of line, and the use of "sect" instead of "denomination" is derogatory. But that's beside the point: the article contains notable material, and that's sufficient justification. Mangoe 18:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Before you conclude that this was a matter of collateral punishment, consider that the article was not in the exemplary condition it is now at the start of the process. The nominator was not the only person who had good faith concerns about the article -- I previously proposed its deletion and was monitoring the article's progress at the time of the nom. Erechtheus 19:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Poorly written articles about notable subjects should be tagged for cleanup, not for deletion. -- Necrothesp 23:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. I disagree in part. There were no apparent sources that could be found to improve the article based on my cursory search. In addition, I disagree with this Cathedral="notable by default" theory that has sprung up in this discussion. I think it is biased in favor of religious institutions that have Bishops and could very well lead to a situation where Cathedrals that aren't very notable are kept "over" individual parishes that are more notable. When there is no apparent basis for notability, bringing an article in for AfD discussion is the only responsible thing to do if you ask me. Erechtheus 23:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. Sorry, but I completely disagree with this. Any major church, whether of an episcopal denomination or not, is notable (we have many articles on churches which are not cathedrals). But cathedrals can easily be defined as notable for being the mother church of a diocese and usually (not always, but usually) pretty large. Nobody is saying that the churches of episcopal denominations are more notable than the churches of other denominations, but only those denominations have a group of churches that are defined as inherently notable in this way, so it makes sense to define cathedrals as a class as notable buildings. Like it or not, people are interested in cathedrals. When I visit a new city, the cathedral is always the first place I head for. And I'm not religious in the slightest - I just like fine buildings. -- Necrothesp 23:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well yes, but you were also considerably more disposed to assume my good faith than Arbusto. If you recall, you said as follows:

How long do you believe it will take to add material that may establish the notability of this Church? I'm certainly happy to leave you be for a number of days or perhaps a month before re-checking the article to make sure any concerns have been met. Erechtheus 08:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My concern is simply that most Church locations are not notable. There certainly are ones that are, though. What you have mentioned already sounds promising, so I really don't think there will be a problem once you're farther along building the article. In fact, I'm rather looking forward to it. That's one part of the reason why I like to go back and look at the work done. Do remember to remove the proposed deletion template if you have not already done so. Erechtheus 08:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And the last sentence of your 13 September 2006 comment is what caused me to remove the proposed deletion template. Which is what really put the skunk in the air conditioner. I'm still wondering what the issue is with filling in the red-linked articles in a prior list of cathedrals (or indeed of anything). All Wikipedia articles are, after all, works-in-progress and the gratuitous insertion of a proposed deletion template in an article bearing the stub template without any prior notice by Arbusto as opposed to your approach to the matter does reverse the onus as to the presumption of good faith. Masalai 19:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment The original AfD tag was added barely four hours after the "notability" tag was added. It seems odd that at no point was anything included on the talk page by either of the warring editors. -- Beardo 02:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cathedrals are generally notable buildings and organisations, unless there is exceptional circumstance (such as a very recently established cathedral with only a few adherents in its diocese). --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it already for Christ's sake. RFerreira 23:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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.