Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathedral of hope

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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cathedral of hope

There are multiple churches with this name, this is simply one of them, non notable organization SkierRMH 08:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, but not many in Texas with a majority gay congregations! Weak keep, simply because that's kind of unusual and thus probably notable. Tubezone 09:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep but rename to Cathedral of Hope (Dallas). I agree that a majority gay congregation at a Christian church in Texas is notable, but there are no references to reliable secondary sources. It would be a definite Strong Keep were references given. Also, "Hope" should be capitalized as it's part of a proper name, and the city name should be used to disambiguate it from the thousands of Cathedrals of Hope worldwide. Change vote to Strong Keep per Edison's changes. Church has been written about by multiple non-trivial secondary sources. I still suggest a move. --Charlene 15:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentNow it has lots of reliable independent sources, that it is the largest U.S. gay church, and that the structure is architecturally significant. Edison 17:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I agree with Ohconfucius, the very novelty of a Gay Texan church may qualify it for notability. --The Way 11:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC) (Note: vote was originally cast on the wrong AfD, with respect to an individual unrelated to the Cathedral of Hope. I moved it in good faith so that the vote would be located in the right place and for no other reason. --Charlene 15:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC))
• Weak Keep I agree about renaming it, and provide reasonable sources and links and it could be an interesting article about one of few "gay churches" in this country. Missvain 15:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The very definition of a notable church, both as the largest gay church, and for having a noted architect, Philip Johnson, as the designer of the new structure. I added several independent mainstream sources. Edison 17:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Charlene. Adding to notability is the move from MCC to CofC. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Fourth-largest congregation of a mainline denomination. Carolynparrishfan 10:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• With a slightly sick feeling in my stomach I say Weak Keep. Just scrapes into the notability club, largely on the strength of being a big gay church. If it weren't for the particular ministry I'd vote the other way: ideally I think we shouldn't care about whether people are gay or straight or whatever as individuals, and I feel pretty queasy singling out groups that have a particular orientation just because they have that orientation, but are otherwise unremarkable. (To see what I mean, consider PTAs: I don't believe we should cover PTAs in general, and a PTA all of whose members live in Castro Street is no more noteworthy than one all of whose members live in heterosexual suburbia. It's surely the same with church congregations.) WMMartin 18:04, 21 November 2006 (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.