Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waukee United Methodist 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 no consensus. While there is a slight majority for deletion, the rationales are found somewhat lacking in the view of provided independent sources about the church which contribute to passing WP:N. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Waukee United Methodist Church

Waukee United Methodist Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Individual church congregations are not notable unless proven otherwise, and this article has no proof of notability. It has sources, but not enough to make it notable. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep but rewrite or merge with Waukee, Iowa. Notability and Verifiability requirement met by being both a pre-20th-Century American church still in existence combined with it being one of the oldest churches in its locality, combined with being cited in the listed references. Current article is does not meet Wikipedia standards, but that is grounds to improve the article not delete it. The content can be safely merged into Waukee, Iowa as part of a section that covers all historical churches in the town. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you preferring a keep or a rewrite? As far as your opinions for keepingj, all four churches (altogether average) in my hometown meet those criteria, along with dozens of congregations in my small denomination; simply a big number of years in its age and a small number of other churches nearby don't make it notable. Nyttend (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Rewritten for style with minimal content changes. I stripped out the current officers except the pastor and added a mention of the preschool and food pantry. The article could probably use an infobox. I'm okay with merging an abbreviated form of this and other similar churches in town into the city article and turning this into a redirect. As far as what the criteria for notability are for historic churches, different editors will draw the line at different places. This is part of why we have AfDs, so we can discuss whether a given church like this meets the criteria. I think we need input from a few more editors before the closing admin can made a decision. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • General comment on church articles It would make a good WikiProject to go through all the church articles, divide them into categories of "clearly not notable by any stretch of the imagination," "clearly meet Wikipedia's notability criteria," and "notability debatable," and do the appropriate speedy and afds on the latter two categories. For churches that do not assert their notability, an editor needs to at least read the church web page and do a web- and news-search to see if there is anything even marginally notable about the church, and if so, put a reference in the article before nominating it for deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, local church congregations are not inherently notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Taking into the account Davidwr's suggestion, I would argue this falls into the "notability debatable" section and err on the side of maintaining the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecoleetage (talk • contribs) 20:56, 12 May 2008
  • Delete - I see nothing notable about this congregation. - Philippe 01:12, 14 May 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.