Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of the Ascension (Clearwater, Florida)


 * 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 18:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Church of the Ascension (Clearwater, Florida)
Non-notable church, written in a first person format. Obviously a vanity page. I abstain from the vote. Clamster5 17:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, a google search finds only 367 pages. Cleanup if it was more notable. --> So sayeth  M  e  t  h  n  o  r Sayeth back|Other sayethings


 * Keep, Church of the Ascension is a historic landmark in Clearwater FL. Significant Outreach results from this parish. Religious Community Services (RCS) was founded at Ascension. RCS provides services for families, abused spouse and their children (Haven House), a food pantry, clothing, "Back-to-school" supplies" are only some of the services provided — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alyce G (talk • contribs)
 * Alyce G I see that you contributed a lot to the article, but please don't take personal offense. Please see Manual of Style to see how to write an article the correct Wikipedia way. Also, if you can find online references that explain the church's (such as news articles) please put them into the article. Also, having a local parish program is not considered notable. If it is a national or statewide program, please show sources.Clamster5 21:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please cite sources that record this church as being a historic landmark. The article cites no sources at all. Uncle G 21:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, original research, no sources, vanity. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 22:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and cleanup (see change of "vote" below), shows potential. Alyce, please see Places of local interest for some ideas on how to add such information to Wikipedia.  Until I edit this article momentarily, it didn't even mention the denomination, which I think is pretty significant.  I also see hints on the Internet about the building being architecturally significant and the musical hardware being special, but I can't find a lot on the web.  Alyce, you would be a much better person to find information on these things.  JYolkowski // talk 23:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment JYolkowski, your statement "I can't find a lot on the web" says a lot about the church's notability. Clamster5 23:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, no. A lot of places like these have lots of information in local historical journals and books, but unfortunately I don't have access to a Tampa library (-:  My preference is to keep an open mind as to the article's verifiability; maybe sources will turn up (hint, hint, Alyce G) (-:  JYolkowski // talk 23:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The notability of the church in Clearwater, Florida, is irrelevant; what is important is its notability globally. That notability is minimal, and thus I'm going for delete. --  tariq abjotu  00:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I just changed the article to assuage most of the complaints. As far as whether it is "globally" notable, I'm sure that many articles in Wikipedia deal with subjects that may not affect the entire world. Importance in the community is important enough, I think. Goldsmitharmy 00:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a concern that Goldsmitharmy might be a sockpuppet as his/her only edits are the to this talk page and the page nominated for deletion. Clamster5 02:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind Assume good faith and also that this is a discussion, not a vote. Certainly he is a new user, but seeing as how he's making significant enhancements to articles (complete with inline references) and not just "voting", he's making a more significant contribution to this discussion than someone who just creates an account and votes "keep".  JYolkowski // talk 02:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up. This may now be the first keep-worthy local house of worship I've seen at AFD.  The sourcing isn't all that good yet (for example, the relative size of the organ is linked to a site that is clearly incomplete), but the history, carillion and architecture make this a keeper.  If we don't have solid sourcing and expansion of the history bit in another year or so, my opinion may change in a future AFD.  GRBerry 02:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing my "vote" to keep after rewrite by User:Goldsmitharmy. Good job.  JYolkowski // talk 02:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn church only of significance to it's local community. Not at all convinced by the history, architecture etc.. on that basis almost every building in France would have to be listed! Marcus22 10:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wryspy 19:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This user's vote does not seem to follow the first guideline in AfD – Wikietiquette. — SomeHuman 23 Sep2006 15:04 (UTC)
 * Keep! Not exactly the most noteworthy church, but if a CD of next year's forgotten music and a plant that would be noticed by only a few botanists, get their pages, why should one not respect the work of the architect and builders, the sentiments of the parish, the authors of the article. I would not have written the article, but now it is there; destroying it would be an act of vandalism: Compare the price of a few kilobytes of server space with the cost of having the church itself. There are less than 200 carillons in the USA, not all of these in churches, and this church has got one. — SomeHuman 19 Sep2006 19:49 (UTC)
 * Comment SomeHuman, read this statement again: "Not exactly the most noteworthy church". You're the second person who thought the article should be kept, yet also stated its not notable. Clamster5 22:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply You had stated your argument at the top. I stated mine, which says 'not exactly the most noteworthy', that means of minor notability but not void of any notability as 'not notable' would – Do not put words in my mouth. In fact I did express one reason why it is clearly noteworthy to a large group (its carillon) and that it is generally noteworthy for smaller groups. An encyclopedia is not a bestseller roman that needs to be interesting to many from the first page till the last, but has and must have a lot of articles about minor details for the few who are interested in some of these: where else would they find their information? Voting to oust articles based on notability alone is a popularity contest and undignified for an encyclopedia, especially one of larger size. — SomeHuman 20 Sep2006 05:14 (UTC)
 * Additional reason for keeping at least for now: Since 'notability' as a reason for Afd is still under debate in Non-notability, one should be twice as careful not to eagerly delete (that is: against that proposal's guidelines) until that debate is resolved. — SomeHuman 23 Sep2006 15:04 (UTC)
 * Delete parishcruft; nn church pushing its vanity page -- it's claims to notability fail the straight-face test; however if they could raise the dead or pull a Heaven's Gate, things might be different. WP is not an advertising service. Carlossuarez46 02:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't make sense of this comment - "parishcruft" isn't a word, I can't see any vanity on the page (an example, maybe?), and the comment about "if they could raise the dead" is not only ridiculous, it's insulting to nearly every religious article on Wikipedia. Goldsmitharmy 03:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Simoes. Prolog 21:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This user's vote does not seem to follow the first guideline in AfD – Wikietiquette. — SomeHuman 23 Sep2006 15:04 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think that Goldsmitharmy has done a great job and there is enough interesting stuff in this article to makeit encyclopaedic. BlueValour 02:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - The claim "Carol Schwenke, the first woman to be ordained a priest in the Episcopal Diocese of Southwest Florida, serves as Sunday assistant" is notable. JASpencer 18:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.