Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Parish Church


 * 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)

North Parish Church

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)
 * The church is named "Unitarian Church" on D.G. Beers' 1872 map of North Andover Map of North Andover, plate 55, so try also:
 * -- do ncr  am  20:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- do ncr  am  20:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- do ncr  am  20:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 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 This is one of four AFDs with commonality that they were created by one editor no longer active, were prodded by the deletion nominator, had prod removed by me, and have similarity in nomination statements (e.g. reference in one to "prod removed on the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:
 * Articles for deletion/Mount Dora Museum of Speed
 * Articles for deletion/Coral Springs Museum of Art
 * Articles for deletion/Old Florida Museum
 * Articles for deletion/North Parish Church
 * Requirements for wp:MULTIAFD may or may not be met. It is NOT wp:CANVASSING to note the commonality (neutral, not to talk pages, not selective, transparent).  For efficiency, editors are invited to consider all four. -- do  ncr  am  19:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Like other church articles, article is to be about both the congregation and its significant buildings.  This congregation in North Andover, Massachusetts was founded in 1645 (!!! can't be much older in the U.S. as Puritans landed in 1620's...however it's the 37th Puritan church in America !!!!) and the current distinctive building, built in 1836 when the congregation changed from Puritan to Unitarian, is its 5th meetinghouse, per http://www.northparish.org/learn/about/history/ (history page at the church's website).  I am confident there is significant coverage of the church as congregation and its buildings through history, though much of that will not be in online sources.  Disambiguation vis-a-vis a same-named church in Stirling, Scotland may be needed if the Scottish one deserves an article too. -- do  ncr  am  19:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Well, on basis of my amateur but long-running experience on historic U.S. church articles in Wikipedia, I do allege that sources will exist. :)  But don't let's get bogged down then in my credentials, i don't want to assert to be an expert.  Sure, I do freely grant that showing specific sources is better and more convincing.  I'll try some more searching on "Unitarian Church North Andover" and other search terms.  However, I fully believe the church's history web page that I linked above is reliable about basic facts, and that local historians and early American histories will have coverage. -- do  ncr  am  20:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks, I defer to sources provided by Hirolovesswords below. Among other facts in the first source provided, the church's bell was cast by Paul Revere, and there's involvement in the 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. -- do  ncr  am  21:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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. -- do  ncr  am  20:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment on article naming: Let's not get distracted by the naming of the article.  I agree with Peterkingiron that "North Parish Church" is too generic, as there do exist other churches of that name, and no one is world-wide known.  The AFD subject article surely should be renamed/moved to a more specific name, and it should be listed within disambiguation page North Church if there is not yet merit for a more specific disambiguation page at "North Parish Church".  I just modified "North Church" dab to include mention of this church and set up North Parish Church (North Andover, Massachusetts) temporarily as a redirect to the article.   After the AFD concludes it would be uncontroversial and appropriate to rename / move-over-redirect the article.  I'd just move it now but don't want to confuse the AFD. -- do  ncr  am  20:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – Based on the following sources, I believe the subject of this article is notable. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merrimack Valley Magazine article on 2007 restoration project
 * Section on the Town of North Andover's website explaining the role of the church in the town's separation from Andover
 * 2010 local newspaper article about the parish's works
 * 1921 Christian Register article about the church's minister
 * Paragraph from Kwanzaa: Black Power and the Making of the African-American Holiday Tradition about the church's celebration of Kwanzaa
 * And Firm Thine Ancient Vow: The History Of North Parish Church of North Andover, 1645-1974 by Juliet Haines Mofford
 * An Inventory of the Records of the Particular (Congregational) Churches of Massachusetts Gathered 1620-1805 by Harold Field Worthley, which contains a section on the North Parish Church

 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.