Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notable Orthodox Churches North America

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) epicgenius (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Notable Orthodox Churches North America

Notable Orthodox Churches North America (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)

This is an indiscriminate, as well as unnecessary, list. By the virtue of existing on Wikipedia, all the listed churches are "notable". Also see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 25#Category:Notable Orthodox Churches North America. epicgenius (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator. epicgenius (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep not WP:INDISCRIMINATE, clear inclusion criteria, reasonable topic. Nothing wrong with this that can't be improved with editing. Jclemens (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jclemens: It needs a lot of work before it could be published. I can also suggest that this be moved into the draft namespace, but two churches is not enough for a list that supposedly talks about all notable orthodox churches in North America. epicgenius (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• First of all, we don't use article titles containing the word notable, so at the very least the title should be renamed. Secondly, a more comprehensive list already exists for a certain part of North America: List of Orthodox churches in Toronto, which appears to be one giant linkfarm. Ajf773 (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ajf773, can you suggest language that, without using the word "notable" would limit a list to historically and/or architecturally significant buildings? 18:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• We simply change the name to List of Orthodox Churches in North America and apply a clear inclusion criteria to only include list entries with articles as per WP:WTAF. But as we have a more comprehensive list for churches in Toronto then this list is basically surplus to requirements. Ajf773 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• That is a good solution, but this list needs a lot of work, to the tune of at least twenty entries for the U.S. alone. epicgenius (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• That example is why I am afraid that the list would just grow to an indiscriminate list of Orthodox churches in the entire continent. If that's just one city, then we could have a much bigger problem for a list about the continent. epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You keep using that word, indiscriminate. I do not think it means what you think it means. Jclemens (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, I do. It's not "discriminating", or choosing carefully and using judgment. I think it is perfectly appropriate in this context since there is a gray area between churches that have articles, and famous churches that are one-of-a-kind for some reason. People have a tendency to confuse the two. epicgenius (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep but tweak parameters for clarity of definition. I'm looking at Category:Lists of churches and at Category:Lists of churches in the United States. It's a pretty eclectic set of lists, and some have pretty vague criteria: List of oldest church buildings, a list that includes extant buildings, said-to-have-been-built-on-the-site-of-on-older-building, and "there's a legend that....". Clearly we could have a List of Orthodox Churches in the United States, an orthodox version of List of Anglican churches, List of Catholic churches in Austria, or the list of Friends meeting houses in Pennsylvania. And we could have a List of Orthodox churches by notable architects or a List of oldest Orthodox churches in ... Or a List of historically designated Orthodox churches. As I see it, article simply wants a little stiffening of the definition, but I think historically or architecturally notable is getting close and could be tightened. And I do want to thank the article creator, I had no idea Frank Lloyd Wright had designed an orthodox church; it looks like a flying saucer about to take off for heaven, and I love the neo-Grec blue dome.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• @Doncram: a topic expert on notable buildings. Don, how do we go about defining a list to restict it to architecturally and historically notable buldings?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Thanks for the ping and the vote of confidence! Yes, it is valid to have a list of Orthodox churches in the United States, and No, it is not hard to keep such a list under control. The two entries were Greek Orthodox ones, and actually there needs to be a list of Greek Orthodox ones in the U.S., and I just edited the article into that direction and may boldly move it to new title List of Greek Orthodox churches in the United States. Already existing are List of Russian Orthodox churches in the United States and List of Coptic Orthodox churches in the United States. These are indexed on navigation template {{Lists of religious worship places in the United States}}. There are also world-wide lists of Russian Orthodox ones and Coptic ones on {{Lists of religious worship places}}. World-wide List of Greek Orthodox churches is currently a redlink but should be created and link to this U.S. list plus the Canadian list mentioned above.

Some years ago it was more difficult, but now a list like this is quite easily managed; some language at the top suggesting this is meant for notable churches such as ones listed on the National Register but allowing for churches (including churches as congregations and/or as current or former buildings) suffices. Obviously a church which is individually notable (has a separate article) can be included. I also support there being redlink items (including several NRHP-listed ones that I just added) where there is a supporting reference or two suggesting notability. I also support "blacklink" items about churches that may not ever need a separate article but which seem "list-item-notable" at some lower standard including that there must be sources about them. I edited at the article a bit just now. I added 15 or so NRHP-listed ones. Concerned persons here are welcome to watchlist the list-article and participate in future Talk page discussions of the notability of individual entries that might get added in future years.

All concerns stated above by others seemed reasonable, and it seems all are participating in good faith, this is good to see in an AFD. I hope/trust this additional information and editing that I am doing at the article address all parties' concerns. Knock on wood maybe everyone can come back and agree and this can be closed early without requiring more editors to get involved. Cheers, --doncram 20:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I like the expansion. I suggest moving the page to only cover Orthodox churches in the US, since that's the current scope of this list. I'll withdraw the AFD, since the page is more encyclopedic compared to when I nominated, and a more comprehensive list rather than just two list entries.

Also, and unrelated to this AFD, the list needs references. I supposed they can be added afterward. epicgenius (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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.