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 delete. Most of the Keep comments are of the ITSNOTABLE variety Black Kite (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knox Presbyterian Church (Harrison Township, Michigan)

[edit]

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

Not a notable church - fails WP:GNG. It's not a megachurch, and all I can find from Google Books is a picture and caption from a book about the township. St Anselm (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found a few references and added them to the article. I'd be happier with one more good article from the Detroit Free Press, but the online archives don't cover 1922 to 1999. All in all, the article is free of promotion, reliably sourced, useful to readers who want to know more about this topic, and the references are sufficient to establish wp:notability. Unscintillating (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I expanded the history of the church and added more links.Cryx88 talk
Delete totally WP:MILL local church, sourced almost entirely to the church's own website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing here that really rings the Notability bell. Sources mostly fail RS and the coverage it has garnered is pretty much of the routine sort that one would expect of any church. I saw no claim to any great historical or architectural significance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete The only possible source of significant notability here is the the congregation's shift in stages to the PCA, but I'm not finding a lot of interest in that save in one or two conservative Presbie outlets and blogs. I gather that in doing so it is simply one of many. Mangoe (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It contains useful information of this historic congregation.

Please see WP:USEFUL. St Anselm (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every church is notable in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.223.250.251 (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how that would be nice, but that would render our notability guideline virtually meaningless. St Anselm (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete After looking at this article for a while, I think this isn't really notable. This really doesn't follow Wikipedia:IMPORTANCE BrandonWu (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read this article and I think that is very interesting that a former EPC congregation joined the PCA due to theological differences. I think a picture should be added to the article. Thanks JoeyBear|talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.43.220.204 (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2014 (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.