Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Presbyterian Church (Hamilton) (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. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Central Presbyterian Church (Hamilton)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously AFD in 2005 resulted in delete. Article re-created with no sourcing. Standard searches not showing enough coverage to reach notability per WP:ORG -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with userfy/incubate on request Delete as per WP:DEL7, plus WP:IAR for the requirement of "thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify", as such attempts do not create in-line citations, and WP:V is a core content policy. Obviously this is a notable church. Unscintillating (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Removing !vote as the article has not been tagged as not meeting WP:V, which is WP:BEFORE C3. Unscintillating (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm always inclined to keep articles on significant historic buildings like this one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is rather thin on detail, but may be worth keeping, in contrast with most on local churches. It needs to be tagged for sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting point that the tag in the article said that the problem was notability. Notability requires no sources in the article. I've retagged the article and struck my !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, but someone still needs to produce some sources to demonstrate notability. Anyone? St Anselm (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well written with sources, any questions? --Buick Century Driver 05:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- BuickCenturyDriver has been blocked since March 2013 (log), and his vote should be disregarded. Rebb ing 21:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - where are the sources? I don't see any. There are two external links: one to the church website, and the other to a blog. But no actual sources. St Anselm (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous GBooks results indicate that this is not just an ordinary church. I also found this, which I will add to the article. St Anselm (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the church is 175 years old and has been cited in numerous books relating to Canada, the church/religion, and social order there. see also http://www.presbyterianarchives.ca/FA4000H.pdf p17 Bpc.sg (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if sources aren't in the article, plenty clearly exist, and that is generally enough, I think. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just tag for improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.