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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross Lutheran Church (Atwater, California)[edit]

As far as verifiability goes, the first link is a personal homepage for an ISP. The second is the missouri synod profile for it. Notability has not been established (and I doubt that it could be). Because of those reasons I feel the article should be Deleted. --Адам12901 ^Talk 07:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything of value to local area article or something appropriate. Appears to fail WP:CHURCH and notability is not established by any references in the article that would help establish some notability under that guideline. JROBBO 11:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The first link is the official site, so I don't think it matters much whose server supports it. I agree that the article needs better referencing, but I would note that there are less than three dozen articles for Lutheran churches right now (see Category:Lutheran churches) – only 24 in the U.S., and 11 for LCMS congregations (out of 6000 churches); I think some leeway might be allowed before we start deleting articles too quickly. I believe it's inadvisable to delete an article when it's one of the better ones in its subject area; patience is useful. Conceding the need for better referencing (I think it's virtually certain that there's been reasonable coverage of this church in its local press over 50 years), this is clearly one of the most substantial articles for a U.S. Lutheran church, and one of the few with more than one photo. WP:CHURCH is still in the draft stages (and is only a proposed guideline anyway), so I don't think its standards can yet be used as the primary basis for deletion. MisfitToys 19:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note also that this nominator has proposed deletion for numerous church articles in the past (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saddleback Church and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayside Community Church for two major examples); maybe it's not a reflex action, but it strikes me as an inclination to regard with caution. (And he's been very quick to use WP:CHURCH as basis for deletion, even when that proposed guideline has been in early draft stages and has not achieved general acceptance.) MisfitToys 20:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as author of the article, I can vouch for there being newspaper articles for the church, about its history, involvement with city programs, and other characteristics. When I return to Atwater where the church is located this summer, I can add the references for much of the information from these newspaper articles. The rest of the information comes from historical records from within the church. --Nehrams2020 20:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator may not realise that WP:CHURCH has changed significantly - the guideline has expanded to include more categories for inclusion. I'm only a very narrow vote for merge at present (basically the lack of references) and I think it would be a waste to delete the article — are you saying the size of the church is significant for the local area or that the church would satisfy one of the WP:CHURCH categories? If it does and references is the only problem, I'll willingly change my vote to keep pending you finding the references. JROBBO 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like an ad.--D-Boy 11:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Makes no attempt to establish notability. Vegaswikian 01:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This church has been used as a polling booth [1], and a recent event at the church was covered by local press [2]. It is not unreasonable to expect that a well referenced article could be written over time, meeting WP:LOCAL. John Vandenberg 06:42, 14 February 2007 (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.