Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christ Presbyterian Church (Edina, 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 Snow Keep. The overwhelming consensus is snow keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 07:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Presbyterian Church (Edina, Minnesota)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence that this passes WP:ORG. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This church played a role in Presbyterian history in the schism forming ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians, especially with over 5,000 members--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of evidence that it passes WP:ORG: "The church was a leader in the movement to establish ECO as a breakaway movement from the Presbyterian Church (USA)..." It looks like this is drive-by nomination that did not follow WP:BEFORE. St Anselm (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Village Presbyterian Church (Prairie Village, Kansas). St Anselm (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the outcome was "nomination withdrawn". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historically notable, although needs more materials and citations. JohnThorne (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources exist and would have come up in a WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already mentioned, I don't see how sources that mention the church in one sentence, such as obituaries, count as legitimate coverage. I've opened a discussion about this at WT:ORG. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Er....obituaries? None of the sources on the page is a single-sentence mention, or an obit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources so deserves to be included as passing WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Notable as the leader of a break-away. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2019 (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.