Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Reformed Church of Highland Park: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:28, 28 January 2018 editRusf10 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users12,121 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:26, 2 February 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk \| contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB
(15 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
⚫	===]===
			:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
	{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD\|O}}
			<!--Template:Afd top

			Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

			The result was '''keep'''. ] (]) 00:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
		⚫	===]===
	:{{la\|Reformed Church of Highland Park}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)		:{{la\|Reformed Church of Highland Park}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)
	:({{Find sources AFD\|Reformed Church of Highland Park}})		:({{Find sources AFD\|Reformed Church of Highland Park}})
Line 7:		Line 12:

	*'''"Keep"''' Nominaor's ] claim is a false one and does not address article as written. 19th century church buildings are notable in themselves, this in particular because of local famous architect. Minister was candidate for NJ gubernatorial election. Has functioned a religious sanctuary since the millennium. Is well referenced.] (]) 18:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)		*'''"Keep"''' Nominaor's ] claim is a false one and does not address article as written. 19th century church buildings are notable in themselves, this in particular because of local famous architect. Minister was candidate for NJ gubernatorial election. Has functioned a religious sanctuary since the millennium. Is well referenced.] (]) 18:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
	::The age of the building alone does not give it notability. Even if the architect was extremely well-known (which he's not), it does not ~~given~~ every building he built notability. I don't see the church listed as a historic site anywhere. Even if the minister was a notable person, it still doesn't transfer to the church. However, it doesn't matter because I am 100% sure the minister fails ].--] (]) 20:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)		::The age of the building alone does not give it notability. Even if the architect was extremely well-known (which he's not), it does not give every building he built notability. I don't see the church listed as a historic site anywhere. Even if the minister was a notable person, it still doesn't transfer to the church. However, it doesn't matter because I am 100% sure the minister fails ].--] (]) 20:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Keep''' ~~appears~~ ~~notable~~ in ~~reliable~~ ~~media~~ ~~for~~ ~~its~~ ~~architecture~~ as ~~well~~ as ~~the~~ ~~politics~~ of ~~its~~ ~~congregation~~. --] (]) 19:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)		:::The article is about the church and the congregation and the staff and clearly no search was done by the nominator. --] (]) 19:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
			*'''Keep''' appears notable in reliable media for its architecture, its pastors, as well as the politics of its current congregation. --] (]) 19:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Keep''' The sources here about the church going back more than 100 years establish notability and back it up. Instead of a trout slap here, maybe we should use both ]. ] (]) 19:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)		*'''Keep''' The sources here about the church going back more than 100 years establish notability and back it up. Instead of a trout slap here, maybe we should use both ]. ] (]) 19:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
			:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ]. ] (]) 21:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)</small>
			:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ]. ] (]) 21:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)</small>
			:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ]. ] (]) 21:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)</small>
			*'''Keep''' - clearly not a run-of-the-mill church. ]] (]) 09:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
			*] '''Keep'''. Well-sourced article on notable church. Puzzled to understand why Nom brought this to AfD, since sourcing was already strong when it was nominated. Now, thanks to ] by ], it is SNOWING.] (]) 11:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
			::You're going to need input from someone outside of the usual "let's keep everything" cabal before you can declare snow keep.--] (]) 16:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
			::::*], please return and strike that comment. There is no cabal; the editors I see on this page iVote k or d depending on sourcing; and, most importantly, Misplaced Pages is not a ], and most of us try to keep it that way by attempting to ].] (]) 20:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
			:::::{{yo\|E.M.Gregory}}Perhaps, you should strike your comment. Reread the Keep votes above yours and tell me how those editors assumed good faith. Given your history at AfD, you're hardly in a position to lecture others about their behavior.--] (]) 23:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
			:::Yes, indeed, thanks to ]. Nice when Misplaced Pages works this way: Article is introduced, generates interest/research, and expands comprehensively, all within a couple days.] (]) 17:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
			::::Thanks! It was a joy to work on. I love making the lists. Newspapers.com was great, I gave up my subscription to Genealogy Bank that has different NJ papers scanned. Does anyone have newspapersarchive.com subscription, I am supposed to have one according to Misplaced Pages but I cannot seem to login with what they sent me. Also great was Familysearch for finding missing middle names and birth and death dates of pastors. --] (]) 18:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
			{{clear}}
			:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 17:26, 2 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Reformed Church of Highland Park

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

Church has been in the news recently after a visit by New Jersey's new governor. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTNEWS. Outside of the very recent coverage, this does not pass WP:GNG as the coverage is not sustained. Rusf10 (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

"Keep" Nominaor's WP:NOTNEWS claim is a false one and does not address article as written. 19th century church buildings are notable in themselves, this in particular because of local famous architect. Minister was candidate for NJ gubernatorial election. Has functioned a religious sanctuary since the millennium. Is well referenced.Djflem (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The age of the building alone does not give it notability. Even if the architect was extremely well-known (which he's not), it does not give every building he built notability. I don't see the church listed as a historic site anywhere. Even if the minister was a notable person, it still doesn't transfer to the church. However, it doesn't matter because I am 100% sure the minister fails WP:POLITICIAN.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is about the church and the congregation and the staff and clearly no search was done by the nominator. --RAN (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep appears notable in reliable media for its architecture, its pastors, as well as the politics of its current congregation. --RAN (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep The sources here about the church going back more than 100 years establish notability and back it up. Instead of a trout slap here, maybe we should use both loaves and fishes. Alansohn (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep - clearly not a run-of-the-mill church. St Anselm (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:SNOW Keep. Well-sourced article on notable church. Puzzled to understand why Nom brought this to AfD, since sourcing was already strong when it was nominated. Now, thanks to WP:HEYMANN by RAN, it is SNOWING.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You're going to need input from someone outside of the usual "let's keep everything" cabal before you can declare snow keep.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Rusf10, please return and strike that comment. There is no cabal; the editors I see on this page iVote k or d depending on sourcing; and, most importantly, Misplaced Pages is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and most of us try to keep it that way by attempting to WP:AGF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory:Perhaps, you should strike your comment. Reread the Keep votes above yours and tell me how those editors assumed good faith. Given your history at AfD, you're hardly in a position to lecture others about their behavior.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, thanks to RAN. Nice when Misplaced Pages works this way: Article is introduced, generates interest/research, and expands comprehensively, all within a couple days.Djflem (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! It was a joy to work on. I love making the lists. Newspapers.com was great, I gave up my subscription to Genealogy Bank that has different NJ papers scanned. Does anyone have newspapersarchive.com subscription, I am supposed to have one according to Misplaced Pages but I cannot seem to login with what they sent me. Also great was Familysearch for finding missing middle names and birth and death dates of pastors. --RAN (talk) 18:10, 30 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.