Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Andrew's Place


 * 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 Draftify. You'll find it at Draft:St. Andrew's Place Missvain (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

St. Andrew's Place

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NBUILDING. No indication of historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete or possibly Userfy. This is a student assignment, according to the creator's talk page, so I won't go too far into the problems, but in short this article has next to no independent sourcing, and the tone is not encyclopedic. The St. Andrew's United Church might be notable, but someone would have to find independent sourcing for it.  your teacher should grade you the same whether or not your article is in published article space. It's hard to get articles published here; even seasoned Wikipedia editors sometimes have trouble getting their articles published.--- Possibly (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment GNG-qualifying sources about the development exist. This is a National Post article, and this story was picked up nationally in Canada, and there's a Globe and Mail source in the article too. It's probably notable enough, but the article needs major cleanup. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify to allow chance for improvement. It's true that the sourcing here isn't adequate, but it's also true that better sources do exist as pointed out by SportingFlyer — and as a former resident of Sudbury, I can attest that there is more significance than the article is actually demonstrating as written: it was one of the first key projects in the city's 1960s urban renewal plan to deuglify its downtown core, designed and planned and built with the idea of rethinking the entire concept of what a church could be, as it incorporates mixed-use retail and housing and community space into a church. That's a model you still don't see a lot of, even today — even in the age of the megachurch, there are still very few other churches in North America offering and operating on-site rental housing, making St. Andrews Place relatively unique. The article could do a better job of communicating and sourcing that fact than it currently is, so creator should certainly be given a chance to improve it. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2021 (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.