Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gulfside United Methodist Assembly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was Keep. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gulfside United Methodist Assembly

not really a notable church, parishcruft Montco 00:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you are not African American, or is this site not for what is notable for American of African heritage? This is a state of Mississippi Historic site. C. Baker Motley used it a the base of operations during the court sessions to integrate the Law school at Old MS University. Judge Marshall came there to work with other NAACP lawyers. Leontine Price sang there because it was one of a few places where she could sing opera to her own people in the south. It is not a Church but a 65 acre campus. The only place in this country where a Black person could legally walk on the beach or swim in a part of the Gulf of Mexico until after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

It would have been a bit more civilized if I had been allowed to finish writing the article before passing judgement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JLJQuinn (talk • contribs)

sorry am new at this. Jacqui Quinn

  • My criteria for an AfD are based on objective criteria. The retreat has all of 75 unique hits on google. Some of which include:Gulfport Timeshares. There were 2 AP stories, both of which had to do with the rebuilding of the camp. Big deal, lots of stuff has to be rebuilt after the hurricanes. We don't list every apartment building and hotel on the Gulf Coast that was destroyed. I found nothing to assert the sort of notability which you claim for the place. According to the state's historical preservation, there are 588 state historical landmarks in Mississippi. [1] including post offices. Not all of those are notable. Montco 01:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Google may not be the most representative source of information for stuff from the 1950s and 60s. Thatcher131 04:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • comment I would say that by default, a state historical site is notable. I mean, the site has to be historically notable to become a state historical site, no? Roodog2k 23:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep but cleanup. I think, as JLJQuinn shows, the church is indeed notable. THe article needs some cleanup, but presumably that will come in due course. (Jacqui: see your talkpage) Bucketsofg 01:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and add references - notability established (pending verification) —ERcheck @ 04:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep pending verification; this notable info should be in the article I have added some refs and done some preliminary cleanup Thatcher131 04:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. 97th historical site of The United Methodist Church doesn't seem all that notable to me though. Fagstein 05:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If this is as notable as User:JLJQuinn asserts, then it is far from nomninator's parishcruft and must earn a strong keep -- Simon Cursitor 07:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per JLJQuinn; a state historical site should be sufficient for notability, let alone some of the other contributions of this church. Tijuana Brass 07:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable church.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This topic certainly seems worthy of an encyclopedia entry. After all, Wikipedia is not paper. The article certainly could use some cleanup though. NoIdeaNick 09:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable church and cleanup. --Terence Ong 10:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hang on and assume good faith. :) --Andy123(talk) 12:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems notable but needs verification. Wstaffor 22:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Lets let the author have a chance to get the article written, at least before passing judgement. Also WP:BITE, I think, may be in order. Roodog2k 23:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, conspicuously notable. If the nominator had the time to work his way through the entire list of Google hits to pick out the isolated timeshare reference in a foolheaded and uncivil attempt to discredit the claim of notability, he or she had the time to read the dozens and dozens of legitimate references which demonstrated notability. Such enthusiasm for a most dubious proposal is disturbing at best. Monicasdude 02:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the tone of this comment and the use of the term "foolheaded. " However, the article was tagged for deletion one hour after JLJQuinn (talk · contribs) started it, and regardless of whatever the nominator found via google, I find that the eighth hit on the first page is a newspaper article that verifies the essential details [2]. I notice that JLQuinn has not edited the article since then; maybe this is just her night out. I hope she hasn't been driven away from the project. Thatcher131 04:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Montco has apologized on JLQuinn's talk page, which I find commendable. I considered blanking my comment immediately above but I decided to leave it; maybe this episode will give someone else some food for thought too. Thatcher131 04:29, 19 April 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.