Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. John the Baptist Church (New Bedford, Massachusetts)

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) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 03:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. John the Baptist Church (New Bedford, Massachusetts)[edit]

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

Non-notable like other similar pages up for deletion currently. ThreeHombresStandingAroundATinCan! (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 1. Snotbot t • c » 16:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG, as the church appears historically significant as the first Portuguese Catholic church in North American and recieved lots of coverage when it closed last year. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the sources that TheCatalyst31 found. However, some of those sources need to be added to the article as citations! --Orlady (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be historically significant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG notability is shown. Unscintillating (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Historically significant Church with clear and defined third-party resources. I'd like to know which similar pages up for deletion you are referring to ThreeHombresStandingAroundATinCan! I couldn't help but to notice how you made improvements to the article before nominating it for AFD. I appreciate your contributions, but before making any future proposals, I'd like to suggest that you read and understand WP:BEFORE which includes policies and guidelines for nominating an article for deletion. Stubbleboy 23:37, 7 March 2013 (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.