Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Saints Episcopal Church (Fort Lauderdale, Florida)

Add links
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. Keeps have it: there are sources, there is history. Thin as all it is, there is notability there. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints Episcopal Church (Fort Lauderdale, Florida)

[edit]
All Saints Episcopal Church (Fort Lauderdale, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability - just another church like many others with nothing here to distinguish it. Created by someone with a WP:conflict of interest. noq (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the initial editor of this article. I created it because I used to edit articles on Wikipedia articles often and fell out of practice. I decided on this topic because All Saints is my church and it made sense to get back into practice by writing about something that I was already familiar with. So yes it is a conflict of interest in that sense, but I just attend the church and I'm not a member of the clergy. I'm not out to get people to join the church or anything. If I maintain a nonpartisan tone and cite sources effectively I hope this the conflict of interest will be deemed minor. Cfitzpatrick3 (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The congregation was formed in 1912 and the church building dates back to 1950. That may not seem very long but for South Florida it is ancient. I had hoped that being 100 years old was notability enough. Cfitzpatrick3 (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (but needs work) The fact that the church is 100 years old and continuing to function is good enough to distinguish it from any old religious group, and they even had a financial scandal and a sex scandal causing a rector to be removed from the priesthood, according to my Google searches. There is something worth developing here. But at present the article reads a bit more like a tour guide or brochure for the church.OfficeGirl (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_historic_churches. It is notable for its music program; it has been notably large for its denomination, and it has been a place of pilgrimage beyond mere local interest. I'm not sure if, even by my standards, all 100-year-old churches are per se notable. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Disclosure: FWIW, I am an Episcopalian. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that not all 100 year old churches merit an article. However the location is an important factor as well. Fort Lauderdale was only settled by non-military Americans in 1893. This particular church was established less than 20 years later. This would be the equivalent of a church being established in Massachusetts in 1640, only twenty years after the landing of the Mayflower. Cfitzpatrick3 (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't find anything in the article about pilgrimage. To what are you referring? StAnselm (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, that source is a blog. Can we find a better source? Bearian (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just added an additional source for this event, and article in South Florida Gay News. Cfitzpatrick3 (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:GNG...there is some sources sources, some coverage that are independent of the subject. The most notable reason, "...well known for its outreach to the pets of its congregants, and welcomes the animals into the church sanctuary once a month for a special blessing, including dog biscuits...". rotflol!! Basileias (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/All_Saints_Episcopal_Church_(Fort_Lauderdale,_Florida)&oldid=1070448546"