Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Lutheran Church (Winthrop, Minnesota)

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. MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First Lutheran Church (Winthrop, Minnesota)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability is made in article, no indication of notability found John from Idegon (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notabiliity is asserted: it is a historic church founded in1884 (old by US standards, esp. Minnesota). It's a matter of interpretation and preferences. I have not edited here, but I prefer writing to be a bit more subtle than in-your-face "X is important because...". --do ncr am 21:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think the claim that this is an old church is a really weak claim of notability, and much of it is implied, but it's there. Now, being able to say "This is the oldest church of this denomination in the region, and it's a historic place, and it's also unique for these reasons, etc etc...." would make notability that much clearer. But for now, there's nothing here that would warrant deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assertion of notability is not a requirement of articles, anyhow. No assertion of notability is not a valid deletion reason at AFD, despite it being a speedy-delete reason. At AFD what matters is existence of reliable sources, and such has not been questioned here. So the nomination is not valid. --do ncr am 13:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Google newspapers search brings up at least two articles about the church: one about a fire, ruled accidental, in 1981, causing 30k damage; other about its organ and Hendricksen(sp?) Organ Company getting its start there. Can't copy paste from the interface I'm using, stopping. I expect there's more. --do ncr am 06:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG with multiple, independent sources.--TM 21:14, 5 June 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.