Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark's Episcopal Church (West Orange, New Jersey)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mark's Episcopal Church (West Orange, New Jersey)[edit]

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

Does not qualify as a notable Wikipedia article. Further, other then being on the National Registry a search for articles and references about this church on Google, Yahoo, Webcrawler and other prominent search engines does not yield many if any information at all about this church. In fact the local Episcopal church in New Jersey does not even show it as an active congregation. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable structure, since it is on the National Register. Notability is not temporary, so if the congregation went out of business they and their building would still be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. See coverage: "New Jersey churchscape: encountering eighteenth and nineteenth century ". The building is called an "outstanding example of Gothic Revival architecture" by Preservation New Jersey. The building now houses a Methodist Hispanic congregation and from 2004-2009 a "Lamb of God Fellowship," leased the building from the Episcopal diocese. The St/ Mark's congregation went on to other nearby Episcopal congregations, per [1]. The diocese still maintains the cemetary adjacent to the church grounds. Edison (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NRHP listed buildings and places are notable. The listing means that the documentation exists to expand this article from a stub. It's a matter of retrieving it. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inclusion on its country's national register of historic buildings is sufficient indication of notability, and User:Edison has cited specific sources on its architecture. There will also be the application for it to be included on the register, although these are not always on-line. Article needs expansion, not deletion. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found one of the sources mentioned by Edison on my smartphone about 7 hours ago, but couldn't cite it properly, so was delighted when I got to a computer and saw what Edison has discovered in the meantime. Great work, Edison. This article is about an architecturally notable structure, and the history of the original congregation and subsequent congregations using the building is interesting and worthy of mention. However, the notability of the building itself seals the deal for me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of quotes and references to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historic buildings are notable in their own right. Not appearing on the internet is not a reason for deletion (not another editor who thinks internet searches are the be all and end all of notability <sigh>!). Not having an "active congregation" is not a reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per reliable sources added to the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:HEY. The consensus is that being listed on the National Register of historic places is at least one factor for the notability of a church building. (Saying that "other then being on the National Registry" is like saying, "other than an Oscar, this actor is not notable....") Another factor is that it was designed by the prominent church architect of the mid-Nineteenth century. It's been vastly improved since nomination. Print sources and government websites are acceptable sources. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC) P.S. Past outcomes have kept houses of worship that are shown to be notable generally; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eisenman Synagogue, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agudas Achim Congregation (Alexandria, Virginia), for example. I have my own set of guidelines I've developed. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2011 (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.