Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Cross Church, Lewiston


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Holy Cross Church, Lewiston

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Prod Removed. Non notable church, only sources are self-published (pages in the local journal written by the church officials, not independent journalism) and a passing mention in a stenciled genealogy magazine of dubious reliability.

I don't doubt that routine coverage can be found in the local paper, but that is normally deemed insufficient to keep an article. Fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  16:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The church is discussed in Historically Speaking on Lewiston-Auburn, Maine, Churches by Ralph Burgess Skinner (1965), the naming controversy is in Rumilly's Histoire des Franco-Américains (1958), other works include The Peoples of Lewiston-Auburn Maine, 1875-1975.. and so on.  Bear in mind that most the works covering this period are in copyright in the US,  therefore the Internet is not as useful to deny the existence of sources as it might be of an older church.  The church was one of the last places to support the French speaking community,  and is hence important socio-linguistically.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC).


 * Keep per Rich Farmbrough. As I noted when I deprodded this, a GBooks search shows snippets from multiple scholarly works that appear to cover church's early history and the naming controversy. Also as I noted, even if not separately notable, the material here about the church and its significance for Maine's French-American Catholics would be relevant to the article about the diocese, at least. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GEOFEAT and sources.--114.81.255.37 (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * GEOFEAT? How does that come into play? Fram (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep-Seems like a notable page to have and don't see anything wrong with it to be honest! Wgolf (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Which of the sources are independent, reliable and significant? Not the sources in the article, that's clear. The sources Rich Farmbrough mention don't seem very independent or reliable either, the first one seems to be self published locally, the second is self-published, the third one seems to be an extremely passing mention, and the "and so on" don't look much better. So at best we have one source, the Burgess Skinner book, not the normally required multiple WP:RS. Fram (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons described above -- particularly the historical reasons. I think I'm becoming more of an inclusionist in my old age, but it seems like to me that if this church adds something to the historical record on a topic, there's no good reason to delete it.TheOtherBob 04:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Which historical record, which topic, and what does the church add? I don't see anything in the article that matches yuor keep reasons. The article on the church gives some information about the church (in a rather incorrect fashion, e.g. still claiming that this is a baroque chruch from 1924, when it is a completely un-baroque church from 1948 or thereabouts), but I can't see how it gives information on any other historical topic. Fram (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep this article from 1964 gives a good history of the church. There are multiple, independent non-trivial sources, which is why I believe this article passes WP:GNG.--TM 19:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is not yet complete, but the church represents a rich history which can be read in many articles written about this church. It is the focal point of a vibrant community which grew around the church and its school throughout the years. User:Iberville 0:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above historical and passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2014 (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.