Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highland Park Presbyterian Church (Illinois)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Highland Park Presbyterian Church (Illinois)[edit]
- Highland Park Presbyterian Church (Illinois) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article has been tagged with requests for additional references and questions of notability. Article is 90% copied/paraphrased from the only reference. Only reference is a genealogy website. Article has not been improved since being tagged with issues. Hasteur (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Ammended Nomination After Edison's work I still think the article is marginal on notability. Hasteur (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I rewrote the article and added some references. It is interesting that inventor Elisha Grey demonstrated a telephone in the church in 1874, but otherwise it seems an average church. Edison (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural KEEP, the article appears to have plenty of references by now. Nakon 08:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'd like to see some more work on this article, and might take a crack at it later on... but the sourcing is sufficient, for now. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:14, 27 December 2010 (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.