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.
It does not appear to satisfy the relevant notability guideline,
WP:ORG or the general notability guideline
WP:N, although it is a very nicely written article.
Edison (
talk) 02:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)reply
keep seems to have substantial material from a book, and also a newpaper ref.
Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 07:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep. Well-written, historically significant.
DA Sonnenfeld (
talk) 15:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep Historically significant and has independently verifiable third party sources.
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk) 15:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep while some parts of the article do appear to descend into trivia (for example, a complete list of pastors), the church does appear to be of local historical notability and reliable sourcing doesn't seem to be a problem.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
It does not appear to satisfy the relevant notability guideline,
WP:ORG or the general notability guideline
WP:N, although it is a very nicely written article.
Edison (
talk) 02:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)reply
keep seems to have substantial material from a book, and also a newpaper ref.
Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 07:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep. Well-written, historically significant.
DA Sonnenfeld (
talk) 15:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep Historically significant and has independently verifiable third party sources.
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk) 15:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep while some parts of the article do appear to descend into trivia (for example, a complete list of pastors), the church does appear to be of local historical notability and reliable sourcing doesn't seem to be a problem.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)reply
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.