Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvary Episcopal Church (Louisville, Kentucky)

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 Snowball Keep. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary Episcopal Church (Louisville, Kentucky)

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

Not notable local church. No verification in article. Possible spam. --Purple hills (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: article has been updated with NRHP infobox since deletion nomination. Andrew Jameson (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep church building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Needs expansion and improvement, not deletion but is a valid stub. TravellingCari 22:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 22:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 22:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The church is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as TravellingCari pointed out. It's listed as being notable for its architectural criteria. The verification is there in the infobox and in the cited references -- if you go to the National Register Information System, you can look it up there. It's also recognized as a historic building in the SoBro historic district. I'm not sure where the allegations of "not notable" and "possible spam" come from. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, an infobox was added after nomination. Andrew Jameson (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but the fact that it was on the NRHP was in the article. I went to look at the article in order to !vote once I saw the AfD in the log and while I botched the link when I first added the infobox, it would have been clear when the nom saw it. Looking at the history of the nom's talk page, this may not have been a good faith nom. TravellingCari 04:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, clearly. NRHP properties are inherently notable, and the Park Service citation should eliminate verifiability concerns. Andrew Jameson (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Amen to Andrew Jameson's observation. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article warrants expansion, but the church's presence on the National Register is sufficient notability to keep the stub. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as church deemed notable by U.S. federal government agency. Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep The NHRP does it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that it's on the National Register makes it notable. I don't know where the spam part comes from. Einbierbitte (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The church is a notable historically significant building. Schuym1 (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2008 (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.