Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reformed Church of Newtown (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Shimeru 08:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Reformed Church of Newtown

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability Chronos567 18:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * DeleteNot notable, only google result was the wikipedia article. Nenyedi Talk Contribs@ 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep An American Church that was 225 years old in 1956 is surely notable (if the claimns made are correct). However some of the content about its ministry today seems non-encyclopaedic.  Peterkingiron 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not encyclopedic & like above observation only Google search result was the wikipedia article. Chronos567 02:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd like to say keep - a US church founded in 1731 is very notable - but there's no support online for that claim at all. For English Wikipedia the fact that they've disabled the Enlish version of their website makes it difficult. No !vote yet - I hope someone comes up with something. -- BPMullins | Talk 02:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I hope somebody comes up with something, then - but even if they do, it still remains that the article is rather spammy. --Dennisthe2 02:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 01:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * keep the chinese section of the website is sufficiently expansive (and has some enlgish material) to demonstrate that this denomination is at least real. based on the fact that the website is not functioning in a language i can read, it's difficult to determine whether this has anything notable to it or not. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable enough for an article. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  01:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Vote changed, see below. --Dennisthe2 17:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC) The article reads as if it's advertising a church, and also rambles about what Newtown is at one point.  It fails to assert any reason as to why it's notable.  WP:CORP may apply, but WP:N definitely applies.  I don't see anything that makes this church notable.  --Dennisthe2 02:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep, based on the references added. Thanks for changing my  mind. =^_^=  The article is still spammy and needs a cleanup, so if somebody can get that, great.  This does add one fact, though - the articles are subscription only.  Is it possible to get a bugmenot on those? If so, so much the better.  Also consider WP:LOCAL when cleaning up, by the way.  --Dennisthe2 17:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Found several sources, haven't had time to add to the article, but Added four article about the church from the New York Times which show it has been the subject of substantial coverage. in numerous reliable independent sources in the past 275 years or so. They substantiate the age of the church, its special historic note of having abruptly changed to a primarily Chinese congregation, and the landmark status of the building. One of the nation's oldest congregations. Editing is a more appropriate response to arguments about phraseology than deletion of an article about a congregation/building which satisfies WP:N and WP:ATT. Notability is not a subjective matter or"ILIKEIT" versus "IDONTLIKEIT" voting. Multiple nontrivial coverage in reliable sources proves notability. This satisfies as well WP:CONG which is tagged as rejected.  Edison 03:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: While I'm not !voting one way or another, there are several hundred religious congregations over 200 years old in New England, and I would very much hesitate to call them de facto notable on that ground alone.  RGTraynor 15:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Historic church of particular historical note to the immigrant communities, as is now beginning to be shown with the references. Yes, it's possible that the article itself reads like spam, and this needs to be remedied, but that is not a reason to delete, that is a reason to improve the article. Robotforaday 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep historical churches of note, so long as they can be properly referenced. RFerreira 03:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn 02:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an historic church; however, I think this article should be cut by 1/3 and improved in writing style.
 * Keep - fulfils WP:CHURCH, which, despite its apparent rejection, is still helpful to guide us in a decision. It is an historic church that has prominent role in history of local immigrant communities. JRG 09:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This does meet church, but as the person above me stated, WP:CHURCH has not been accepted by the community as a whole.  Even so, it still meets what I believe are our notability standards and satisfies non-trivial sourcing requirements as well.  Burntsauce 17:33, 21 March 2007 (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.