Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Parish Church

Add links
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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North Parish Church

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local church with no evidence of notability, but prod removed because the only source (a blog) thinks that it's important. Created by the blocked sock of a disruptive user, but it's been edited too much to qualify for G5. Nyttend (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The church is named "Unitarian Church" on D.G. Beers' 1872 map of North Andover Map of North Andover, plate 55, so try also:
--doncram 20:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (dupplicated at 4 AFDs). This is one of four AFDs with commonality that they were created by one editor no longer active, were prodded by the deletion nominator, had prod removed by me, and have similarity in nomination statements (e.g. reference in one to "prod removed on the absurd notion that 'museums are notable', again without evidence", is referring to others in series). These are:
Requirements for
wp:CANVASSING to note the commonality (neutral, not to talk pages, not selective, transparent). For efficiency, editors are invited to consider all four. --doncram 19:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I haven't researched it yet myself (and therefore am not tendering a vote), I'm concerned that Doncram is advocating keeping the article on the strength of his belief that sources exist. Unfortunately, that flies in the face of both
    WP:V and deletion policy. You cannot allege that sources might exist: you must demonstrate that they do. Ravenswing 02:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Wow, thanks, I defer to sources provided by
Salem Witchcraft trials
, and the church building is integral to North Andover's history in other ways. Then church was also named "First Church of Christ"(? or very similar?) and also named "First Unitarian Church".
I was beginning to follow leads on Bailey Loring, a Brown University graduate and 1810 minister of the church, likely father of U.S. representative George B. Loring. There will be numerous associations of the congregation and its members in U.S. history. For AFD purposes i think notability is clear so i stop now. --doncram 21:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not clear if a building being from 1836 in Mass makes it notable. In UK, there would need to be something more special about the church than it being 180 years old for it to be kept. I am therefore not voting one way or the other, but if kept it should be as North Parish Church (North Andover) or such like, as there must be other places with north and south churches. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A congregation from 1645 in Massachusetts makes it notable; a church building from 1836 in Massachusetts makes it notable, especially with its architectural distinction. In my opinion it would surely be eligible to be listed as a historic site, but in the U.S. many (perhaps most) churches choose not to accept historic site listing for their buildings. In the U.S. historic site listing is subject to owner approval, while I understand that in the U.K. listed building status is determined by the external authorities. The term "Cardboard Gothic architecture" itself is unusual; it may in fact fall within what is known in Wikipedia now as
    Carpenter Gothic architecture (if it wood-constructed and not masonry). There is some chance this is very unusual architecturally. --doncram 20:03, 7 December 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, NorthAmerica1000 18:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meeting my standards for historic churches. It (a) was designed by a notable architect, (b) the building is about 175 years old, remarkably old for the United States, and (c) has had a notable congregation, for over 350 years(!), and (d) is notable for its Kwanzaa celebration. Congregational churches don't have bishops, so those other factors don't apply. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 16 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/North_Parish_Church&oldid=1074289279"