Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilldale Lutheran Church

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hilldale Lutheran Church

Doesn't establish any kind of notability, as to why it should be kept RMHED 20:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7: No assertion of notability. Powers 21:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. It's an verifiable public institution that's existed for 56 years. --Centauri 02:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If it's verifiable, where are the verifiable sources in the article? Powers 20:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I will add one. Brokenfrog 05:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks, but the organization's own web site doesn't count. I mean, it's adequate for saying "Yes, this is an organization that exists", but it's not so good for verifying all the other information. Powers 12:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless an assertion of verifiable notability can be added, but most individual churches are not notable unless they accomplish something or have historic value (56 years isn't enough). --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless it can assert notability. Simply existing for 56 years isn't notable - there must be thousands of churches that have been around for longer than that.... --Tim4christ17 04:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per google hits. --Striver 16:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete parishcruft. 56 years of existence is not notable; nearly every member of the AARP would be notable then. Carlossuarez46 20:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep If they can add to it or maybe assert some notability, it should be kept. As is, it seems like vanity, but reading their website, this bilingual church seems to be unique. This article has potential, don't kill it yet.Brokenfrog 04:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a potentially notable site of Finnish immigrant culture in Canada- though of course if this is the case, it needs to be further asserted in the article. The church community is discussed at some length in this paper. Now, I'm not saying that makes it notable in and of itself- especially given that the paper appears to have been written by an insider. But looking at it, it does look potentially interesting as a site of Finnish immigrant activity and change. Potentially ;) Without knowing the place myself, hard to tell.Robotforaday 00:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It appears to be a unique church. I haven't heard of many churches that do dual Finnish and English services. The church also appears to be very large,^[1] which suggests a large impact on the small community in which it resides.--HQCentral 06:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This church is very special and is culturally important to the Finnish culture. Give them some time to develop. Stalin.P҉G 19:38, 12 August 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.