Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rusf10 (talk | contribs) at 06:33, 14 January 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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)

Template:Reply to:AlansohnI 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)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates