Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Luke Lutheran Church
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 was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] St. Luke Lutheran Church
Non-notable church. Katr67 (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The article needs to be rewritten, not deleted. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, does not appear to have any claim of notability. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:ORG. Most individual local churches are non-notable. The church has apparently been mentioned on occasion in independent reliable sources but does not appear to have received significant coverage from them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Most individual churches aren't notable. AndyJones (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Individual congregations are neither inherently notable nor inherently non-notable. This particular one has no specific claijms to notability: (a) it is not particularly old, (b) it has not had a storied history, (c) it is large, but not in an extra-ordinary way, and (d) it has not been served by any particularly notable pastors. I doubt that this would be notable enough for a mention in the Portland article; there is a small mention in the neighborhood article, which seems appropriate. God is gracious -- Wikipedia demands notability. Pastordavid (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and Speedy Close Church's are like small villages and communities, which automatically meet notability, especially if they currently exist. That guideline was found though central discussion, which quasi-substantiates a speedy close. Also, the article has only existed for one month and there isn't anything in the page that casts hurt or displays questionable content. If the article was older than a year, then AfD is could be considered then after time to expand the article, but central discussion has changed the view on the guideline to delete it now. — Dzonatas 01:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amurn -- An example of previous a discussion on AfD. speedy close — Dzonatas 01:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment See WP:HARMLESS and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also a proposal is not a guideline, and individual churches are not settlements. Do you you have a current guideline about the notability of churches to link to that shows this "changed...view on the guideline"? I've written dozens of articles on small towns and would argue that every one is notable, but as stated above, individual churches are rarely notable unless they are historic, such as West Union Baptist Church or Salem First United Methodist Church. Note that each of these is the "first" or "oldest" in some area. On the other hand, their current congregational activities alone would not make them notable if they, say moved to a brand new building. Katr67 (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reply I appreciate your comment and it has been most informative. What's in WP:HARMLESS appears more to be about things or stories that absolutely no reliable source (or potentially none at all) exist. I can't agree that would hold true for a place, which is obvious that someone could visit it an find that it currently exists (and that would be inheritly a reliable source). That is covered in the central discussion: wrong forum — Dzonatas 01:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, per your "there isn't anything in the page that casts hurt or displays questionable content"--i.e. "This article isn't hurting anything". Just because an article isn't hurting anything, that is to say, it is "harmless", doesn't mean it should be included in an encyclopedia, as including anything and everything sets a bad precedent. "It exists" is not a criterion for notability, and of course visiting the place=original research. Again, however,I believe we are talking about an individual church/congregation, not a "place", in other words a settlement. Unless there is a clear guideline that you can point to showing that all individual churches are notable, we have to go with the general Wikipedia-wide notability guideline, which this article clearly fails. Katr67 (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Notability_(Places_and_transportation)#Buildings_and_Structures specifically refers discussion. The article contains the minimal requirement as recognized. — Dzonatas 02:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, per your "there isn't anything in the page that casts hurt or displays questionable content"--i.e. "This article isn't hurting anything". Just because an article isn't hurting anything, that is to say, it is "harmless", doesn't mean it should be included in an encyclopedia, as including anything and everything sets a bad precedent. "It exists" is not a criterion for notability, and of course visiting the place=original research. Again, however,I believe we are talking about an individual church/congregation, not a "place", in other words a settlement. Unless there is a clear guideline that you can point to showing that all individual churches are notable, we have to go with the general Wikipedia-wide notability guideline, which this article clearly fails. Katr67 (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reply I appreciate your comment and it has been most informative. What's in WP:HARMLESS appears more to be about things or stories that absolutely no reliable source (or potentially none at all) exist. I can't agree that would hold true for a place, which is obvious that someone could visit it an find that it currently exists (and that would be inheritly a reliable source). That is covered in the central discussion: wrong forum — Dzonatas 01:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment See WP:HARMLESS and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also a proposal is not a guideline, and individual churches are not settlements. Do you you have a current guideline about the notability of churches to link to that shows this "changed...view on the guideline"? I've written dozens of articles on small towns and would argue that every one is notable, but as stated above, individual churches are rarely notable unless they are historic, such as West Union Baptist Church or Salem First United Methodist Church. Note that each of these is the "first" or "oldest" in some area. On the other hand, their current congregational activities alone would not make them notable if they, say moved to a brand new building. Katr67 (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dzonatas. DurovaCharge! 04:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Proposed policies/guidlines carry no weight. WP:N does, and this article fails that. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2008 (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.
