Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Agnes-by-the-Lake Episcopal Church (Algoma, Wisconsin)

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. While the point that notability is not inherited is fair, Doncram's keep argument also mentions that there are substantial-looking sources. And that can be a evidence of notability. Since nobody has contested that point, keep it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St Agnes-by-the-Lake Episcopal Church (Algoma, Wisconsin)[edit]

St Agnes-by-the-Lake Episcopal Church (Algoma, Wisconsin) (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)

WP:MILL parish church. Page is largely unsourced and contains unencyclopedic content (prevailing legends, etc.). Sections that are sourced are sourced from affiliated sources, failing WP:RS. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Historic church designed by major architect Richard Upjohn, "high Anglican" style, built in 1891 which is old/historic by U.S./Wisconsin standards. Substantial-looking sources stated at end, though article could be tagged towards encouraging use of in-line citations. Obviously worthy of National Register of Historic Places listing, though many churches choose not to accept listing. --Doncram (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Also by the way a new editor interested in the topic emerged after AFD started, and added interesting historic quotation from 1877:

"THE NEW EPISCOPAL CHURCH - We understand that nearly enough has been subscribed to ensure the erection of the Episcopal church. It is proposed to build of brick, suitable in size and form to the anticipated needs of the community, Gothic in style, with symetrical spire, etc. Plan executed by a prominent New York architect are expected soon. The edifice when completed will be an attractive, convenient, and comfortable house of worship, and an ornament to the village. It is intended to be complete, it ready for occupancy free from debt. The title will vest in the Trustees of the diocese until a church shall be organized, when it will be held by the Wardens and Vestrymen of the church."^[1]

Which the deletion nominator removed asserting COI, unproven. Seems like an interesting, valid contribution to me, and i definitely do not like to see the appearance of potential bullying/edit-warring by a deletion-nominator as if to try to "win" an AFD. See Talk page of the article.--Doncram (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the username “Stagnesalgoma” implied a potentially paid COI, which I put a message on the user’s talk page about. I was trying to maintain the integrity of the article by abstaining from paid COI edits, not trying to “win” an AfD. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 11:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment By the way i see indication at the Richard Upjohn article that the church was built "1879, burned 1884, replica constructed 1891". Upjohn is hugely important, by the way, and photo of this work is included/featured in wikipedia article about him. This may have been one of his last works. --Doncram (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I frequently vote to delete church articles (much as I might like to keep them all), but this gets over the hurdle for keeping: notable architect; apparently an early local centre for High Church episcopalianism. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Richard Upjohn connection.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Richard Upjohn is very notable, and this is an example of his work. Church itself is historic. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the work of a notable architect it is of historical interest and should be included in my view, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTINHERITED Blumpf (talk) 04:59, 11 June 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.