Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Anselm's Church (Lafayette, California)


 * 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. Courcelles 22:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

St. Anselm's Church (Lafayette, California)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No credible assertion of notability. Article was created merely to establish the need for a disambig page, according to. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. It is established already that the topic of this California church is wikipedia-notable. Tag as needing development (but the stub tag already does that). Needing development is not a reason to delete. It would obviously be easy to develop this topic further, by use of the Time magazine article and other sources mentioned in the article. AFD nomination seems inappropriate. -- do ncr  am  20:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, hasn't been established. What's the title of the Time Magazine article?-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here it is: Art: The New Churces. Cbl62 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cbl. I searched for it myself, honest... In any case, that wouldn't be sufficient to establish notability by itself. Can you find any of the other articles mentioned? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's a link (in of all places ebay) to a magazine article on the churches of Olav Hammarstrom (1907-2002), which appears (?) to include the one in Lafayette: . This source also appears to be on point. Hammarstrom was affiliated with Eero Saarinen and appears to be notable in his own right.  Someone might want to consider creating an article on him as well.  Plenty of source materials, including:, , , . Cbl62 (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice finds, thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The "Pacific Churchman" doesn't appear to be on-line. The Library of Congress site, however, lists libraries that have it: . Cbl62 (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Gee, nothing in Maine, what a shock...-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Tentative keep. I'm not sure I like the idea of creating articles simply to fill a hole in a disambiguation page.  That said, there's an assertion that there was coverage of the church's architecture in magazines of the time.  It's not as famous as Christ Church Lutheran (Minneapolis, Minnesota), but at least it's got a few mentions.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Not many churches rate a page in Time Magazine; that's impressive. However I could not find anything else at Google News or Google Books. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing to Weak keep; the arguments below are persuasive. --MelanieN (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Although MelanieN's point is well-taken, the Time article plus the mention of the coverage of the architecture in several other publications of the era, which may not be available online, convince me that it is worth keeping and could be better referenced with more research.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  02:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This appears to be an architecturally significant structure by a significant architect.  The Time article was accurately described in the web site published by the church.  Although the other sources referenced there haven't been accessed on-line, I have no reason to doubt that those sources are accurately reported, as was the Time article.  Given the extent of attention in the press to the building's architecture, it seems to me that the best course is to keep.  Hopefully, others will be able to access some of the other materials and improve further. Cbl62 (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP. The article could be better, especially if someone tracks down the references mentioned at the end, but that it is not notable seems silly.  An article, even a stub about the architect would help too.  Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: You know, there seems to be a divide among Wikipedians in interpreting notability. Some believe that any article should be deleted if it does not establish notability, others believe that an article should only be deleted if no independent reliable sources that cover the topic non-trivially exist. I tend to be in the latter camp. Even though the sourcing is poor as it exists, non-trivial coverage in independent sources does exist, as evinced by the Time article. The article also correctly establishes that it's not "just another church"; its notability lies in its architecture. Guideline &amp; Policy Wonk (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Policy is on your side. -- 202.124.74.9 (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2011 (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.