Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metropolitan Community Church of New York (2nd nomination)
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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.
]AfDs for this article:
- Metropolitan Community Church of New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No in-depth coverage; only mentioned in directories; passing mentions in news sources.
]- I think this title is a little more than a passing mention: "Eric M. Rodriguez and Suzanne C. Ouellette, "The Metropolitan Community Church of New York: A Gay and Lesbian Community," The Community Psychologist 32, no. 3 ( 1999): 24-29"·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (]
- Keep - At one level, this is just a single church with about 500 members. However, that doesn't start to tell the story, as this institution is historically important as part of the history of the gay rights movement in America. The New York church seems to be connected with similar Metropolitan Community Churches in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, CA. Its papers are collected with those of these parallel institutions, see the Finding Aid for the ONLINE CATALOG OF CALIFORNIA, which is effectively Reliable Source #1 in this notability challenge. I suspect that much of the coverage here will be in the gay press and I hope that RESCUE SQUAD or one or two Wikipedians specializing in the history of the gay rights movement in America will take the time to source this piece out. Carrite (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't just speculate about its potential notability, find sources demonstrating it. ]
- Keep -- the sources available through the searches above show quite extensive coverage, in fact, including a significant number of books (many of them by academics). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They are all passing mentions; no reason why any noteworthy content can't be put in ]
- keep. Sources exist and clearly notable for gay rights history.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you link to the sources here? ]
- I already provided one above. And better yet - I've put some of them in the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. Sources already added to the article. Also there are news stories like this:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/nyregion/sylvias-place-faces-licensing-problems.html?pagewanted=all--В и к и T 02:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've gone ahead and added sources to the article and other information, along with the New York Times article above. I think its notability is pretty clear at this point and I didn't even have to look hard. SilverserenC 02:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, very clear ]
- 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.