Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Lutheran Church of Venice (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. Consensus to keep after two relistings. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Lutheran Church of Venice[edit]

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

Appears to be just an ordinary church, which by definition isn't notable. MisfitToys' rationale in the first nomination is no reason to keep, and the lack of evidence for keeping makes me question whether there's any coverage: churches with such a name are hard to get sourcing (it's a rather generic name), and since it's a big-city church founded in the 1940s, it's highly unlikely to have a history with significant coverage. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Existing sources do not indicate passage of GNG.--TM 16:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep and redirect First Lutheran School of Venice (a private elementary school) here. And, WP:HEY, Note that the article is now sourced to a handful of WP:INDEPTH, WP:RS articles covering the building's excellent acoustics and use as a classical acoustical music concert venue, and others covering the mural.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the other citations, I'll note that Tony nominee Orson Bean (along with his wife Alley Mills, both longtime members) has starred in a church production of A Christmas Carol for the last 17 years. See this 2015 article and this December 2016 interview. That probably adds a bit to the notability. Feel free to add these or related links to the article. MisfitToys (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious -- Local churches are not notable per se. They need something exceptional. Notable members is a case of inherited notability (which does not count). Being a regular concert venue might qualify;not sure about the mural. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, coverage of the activities of notable parishioners in WP:RS does contribute to notability, just like any other kind of RS coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete no serious claim to notability as far as churches go. The mural is the the closest thing, and I'm guessing that it's purely of local interest. Everything else is a commonplace for churches. Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like any other topic, individual churches can be notable - or not - depending on what sources say about them, plus...

WP:HEY I sourced coverage of the mural and of the arts programming to WP:RSs, primarily the Los Angeles Times, and added a little material about the church written by comedian and raconteur Orson Bean.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia's notability doesn't need to explain why a topic is attracting WP:GNG attention, it is sufficient that it does. Unscintillating (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Individual churches don't automatically get an article per WP:GNG, but in this case there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources, so it qualifies. Brad v 16:04, 5 December 2017 (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.