Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Ambrose's Episcopal Church (Antigo, Wisconsin)


 * 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 delete. WP:PAG based arguments come down in favor of deletion with no PAG arguments presented to the contrary. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

St Ambrose's Episcopal Church (Antigo, Wisconsin)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:MILL. A WP:BEFORE search finds nothing to assert notability. Also, per rationale at Articles for deletion/St Anne's Episcopal Church (De Pere, Wisconsin)  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 19:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

*Weak keep Age should be considered for buildings and monuments. Had it been an article about a person, I would have voted as delete. But a church and that too 100 years old should be considered to remain in encyclopedia. Hopefully, some references can be added by someone in the future. Dial911 (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete not every parish church is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as the church is over 100 years old. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. There is no policy or guideline here that equates old age with notability, at least not in Wikipedia. Almost the whole text is unsourced, original work. -The Gnome (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as has reliable source book coverage already in the article and is of architectural interest as an historic building, age is a relevant factor in building articles, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm open to reversing my stance if other guidelines show it should stay, but I haven't found them yet after searching. I looked at WP:NCHURCH and WP:NBUILD, and it fails both. Both hinge on GNG, which this page fails. The only non-trivial source I could find was the book already cited on the page. However, that book is published by the overseeing religious administration, and is therefore not independent and does not show notability. Per NBUILD (emphasis added): "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." I checked for said sources and couldn't find any. If there are, please feel free to add them and I may well reconsider my choice to AfD this article.


 * Delete It fails GNG as per my search just now. Google news showed nothing. Normal search resulted in bogus user generated sources like yelp, manta etc. I was concerned about this building's century-old legacy. However, we shall go by the policies in effect on Wikipedia. Dial911 (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2018 (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.