Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 05:29, 7 February 2022

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 Keep. Michig (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Second Reformed Church Hackensack

Second Reformed Church Hackensack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Most of the information in the article is sourced from the church's website. There are now two book references in the article, each one only mentions the church on one page and doesn't provide any in-depth coverage. The first book has two sentences about the church's architecture and the second book has a paragraph about the church (the same way it does for every other church in the county). I wouldn't call either significant coverage. WP:PROD was "denied" by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) without any explanation (as usual). Rusf10 (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete -- The article is ambiguous. Is is about the church building or the church congregation? If it were a historical landmark, I would say keep. As a congregation, it is not notable. Rhadow (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing notable about the congregation or its leadership (a blue link into an empty wikidata page notwithstanding). All that is left is a church with Tiffany glass windows. If that makes the grade, then I suppose we should expect a large percentage of the 300,000 churches in the US to have articles proposed. If there were a landmark designation, I would say yes. Rhadow (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, there's nothing here. The keep arguments are not based on notability, but rather I think we have enough information to write an article. And I don't get the point of the wikidata entries for clearly non-notable people, maybe RAN can shed some light on that?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep I see enough information for a standalone article per the GNG. --RAN (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep The article, as expanded by RAN, merits retention based on the reliable and verifiable sources about the church. Again, we have a nominator who refuses to comply with WP:BEFORE, which requires seeking alternatives to deletion. Even if the nominator genuinely believes that the article should not exist on a standalone basis, the box that displays above this page when editing rather clearly states "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." All we have her is further abuse of process from an editor who simply won't comply with policy (as usual). Alansohn (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alansohn:I did WP:BEFORE, I even did an analysis of the sources in the nomination. But I don't think you even bothered to read that. What would be an appropriate merge or redirect target here????? Your repeated comments about me are totally unacceptable. Why do you add something of value to a discussion instead of just personal attacks??? You don't bother to comply with WP:CIVILITY, so don't lecture me here on complying with policies.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, RAN was able to find the sources that you were unable to find and unwilling to search for, as usual. If you were here to build an encyclopedia rather than destroy it you might have found the appropriate merge target might well be ..... Hackensack, New Jersey. Maybe show some good faith by editing and improving an article, following through on a merge, maybe even adding a source. Try it. Once. See if it works. It's how editors contribute to Misplaced Pages. Alansohn (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

For the second time, I already addressed those sources, but you failed to read. Let me help you, "Most of the information in the article is sourced from the church's website. There are now two book references in the article, each one only mentions the church on one page and doesn't provide any in-depth coverage. The first book has two sentences about the church's architecture and the second book has a paragraph about the church (the same way it does for every other church in the county). I wouldn't call either significant coverage"--Rusf10 (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Disagreed completely, but for the third time what about the proposed merge to Hackensack, New Jersey? Even if as nominator you genuinely believe that the article should not exist on a standalone basis, the box that displays above this page when editing rather clearly states "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." Will you follow policy here and either support a merge or explain why you refuse to do so? Alansohn (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You can't merge it to Hackensack, it gives WP:UNDUE to a religious organization (or perhaps a building, it not clear which is the subject of the article).--Rusf10 (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

If the amount of information is undue for a merge, then there must be enough information for a standalone article. I agree. BTW your criticism of the existing references came AFTER your PRODDED the article. So, yes, you could have performed a search instead of just looking at the existing article. At the reliable sources noticeboard you have a list of articles you think were wrongly saved. Any one of those could have been improved by yourself. --RAN (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

When I PRODDED the article, the only source was the church's website. You added the other references after and then I addressed them here when I created the AfD. BTW, when you dePROD an article it is strongly encouraged that you leave an explanation.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

As pointed out by others, you never seem to look for references, and that is why your deletion ration is so bad. --RAN (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment --We frequently do not distinguish between buildings and congregations when it comes to churches. On the other hand, most loal churches are NN. The question is whether the Louis Comfort Tiffany stained glass is enough to make it notable. I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Strong keep Very notable church. Its architecture has been extensively noted in lots of sources. There's also coverage of the congregation. The Tiffany glass features. Just one example of the multitude of sources is the book Record of Fifty Years, 1855-1905, Second Reformed Church, Hackensack, N. J. by Arthur Johnson. The architecture of the building was also featured at a 1905 meeting of the Brooklyn American Institute of American Architects. 113 years of additional coverage and sourcing of the building, art, and congregation followed. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"'Record of Fifty Years, 1855-1905, Second Reformed Church, Hackensack, N. J.' " by Arthur Johnson" sounds like something written by a church member, not an independent source. The only possible notability would be the Tiffany windows, but many churches have Tiffany windows, so I do see why this one is unique.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: Meets Misplaced Pages:GNG criteria with reliable sources provided. Tinton5 (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep  Historic church/congregation with nice variety of sources in the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, per editors above. Specifically if a church has original Tiffany windows it is usually going to be notable, in practice. About User:Rhadow's question whether a church article is about the congregation/organization or about the building(s), past and present, the answer is it is usually and very appropriately about all. We don't want to split into separate articles about a historic building vs. a congregation. --Doncram (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Doncram -- I didn't meant to imply that two articles were needed. The question was which of the two is notable, the architecture or the congregation. Insofar as the article gives scant recognition of the second, I take it the discussion here is about the notability of the architecture. There are hundred of churches with Tiffany glass and a handful of synagogues.. Rhadow (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that source titled "Tiffany Stained Glass In Churches (PHOTOS)" suggests that "churches/synagogues having Tiffany windows" is a notable topic. It asserts hundreds of windows, not explicitly hundreds of churches (which could have a dozen windows each, say) but probably there are hundreds of churches, which is still no problem. I have seen a good number of U.S. National Register of Historic Places-listed churches where the significance asserted is that the church has Tiffany windows. Many churches choose not to apply for or accept National Register listing, but it seems like "having Tiffany windows" suffices for a church being fundamentally notable. There will always then be occasional newspaper articles about the windows, before and after the internet.

By the way that source even seems to call for a "comprehensive" list, which IMO Misplaced Pages oughta provide. There are sources like the exhaustive list of Michigan installations cited in the Tiffany glass article. We do have Tiffany glass#Locations and collections but not a standalone List of Tiffany windows (currently a redlink) or List of Tiffany glass installations (currently a redlink). It's about time to start that, which would naturally link to this Hackensack church article, too. --Doncram (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: Meets Misplaced Pages:GNG criteria with reliable sources provided.- Morphenniel (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep as above Djflem (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep clearly has the sources to meet WP:GNG requirements based on the Tiffany connection. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:39, 18 January 2018 (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.