Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Church of Christ, Scientist (Raleigh, North Carolina)


 * 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

First Church of Christ, Scientist (Raleigh, North Carolina)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sign of notability. Just a local church. Per Articles for deletion/Immanuel Lutheran Church (Hodgkins, Illinois). —DIYeditor (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Century old churches with handsome buildings can almost always be sourced to establish notability. Advise Nom to include church's webpage  in WP:BEFORE searches, because it usually gives a hint about where to look - in this case for article's on the architecture of the Church's Reading Room.    Also, with a denomination that was a big deal a century ago, (Christian Science in this case, but also the Presbyterian, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Unitarian  and Catholic denominaitons,) but that are now shrinking, it is a fact that a proper search for notability cannot be done without access to  a news archive.  Rapidly bringing several churches to AfD with cursory nominations is NOT a responsible way to edit an encyclopedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think if establishing notability takes more than access to common search tools the onus is on the creator of the article to introduce sources. To me, what is not responsible is to create a string of article stubs on churches without including any significant reliable secondary coverage. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I wrote this article in 2010 and had not edited it since. I was newer to Wikipedia at that time and I think you should assume good faith over irresponsibility. I had completely forgotten about these articles until you tagged them today. I mostly focus on biographies now anyway. I will gladly improve them, but do not assume I decided to "create a string of article stubs". - Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, entirely agreed. You must understand that when we joined Wikipedia years ago sourcing was not considered so important as it is now. Many of us created strings of unsourced stubs. It's what editors did then. Describing it as "not responsible" is failing to WP:AGF and assuming that Wikipedia has always been like it is now. It was a much younger project back then and procedures and guidelines were not so well-developed. We just all wanted to create new material as quickly as possible. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete the sources in no way show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as the building itself is historic (built in 1931). -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Is 1931 intended to sound like an archaic date? This is not a policy-based argument. How does a building being constructed in 1931 meet GNG or NBUILD? —DIYeditor (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete not enough sources to show this passes WP:GEOFEAT and just because it was built in 1931 (not a century old) and that some may find it handsome (I don't) does not make it automatically of historical or cutural interest, as per the notability criteria those buildings that may be "require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." and none have been added to attest to the historical character of this building. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as two relists have failed to produce sources to support this church's notability. This is one of many, many churches in the US that are "historic" in the sense of "built before now" rather than "notable enough for a Wikipedia article." Bakazaka (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - with no significant coverage, fails to meet WP:GNG. Three primary sources, and one source that's not really about the building, but uses it to start a discussion about the national church organization itself. A Google search brings up nothing more except routine announcements of events. The building does not seem to be architecturally significant. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)


 * 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.