Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Presbyterian Church (Perryville, Missouri)


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 07:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

First Presbyterian Church (Perryville, Missouri)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. The article creator promised to expand the article, but nothing has happened. In any case, a web search produces nothing about this church that suggests notability. StAnselm (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: Link one goes to a main website, no coverage of the place. Link two just shows the church's address, nothing on how it's notable. Link three Safari seems to have a problem with. Even if you doubt link three you've got that it fails one and two thus it fails having two reliable sources. MM (I did the who in the whatnow?)  (I did this! Me!) 22:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand the urgency at deleting this article, and after working all day long I must say it is disheartening to come home and see this notice in my box. I was notified that I only had 2 days to get the information for this article before deletion. Two days are by far not sufficient time, especially considering that most of my day is spent at work. I explained that I started the article - as is - so that the people I am trying to contact could possibly contribute themselves, and maybe even become inspired to contribute to other Wikipedia articles. However, these people I am trying to get information from in Perryville, Missouri are not the world's fastest people and do not work at lightening speed. It would be counterproductive and rude for me to snap my fingers at them in getting me the information that I require just because someone so urgently wants this article deleted. Furthermore, I live in San Francisco, California, and am trying to get information about this church in Perryville, Missouri, which is 2,118 miles (3,408km) away. The exact reason that I need time to get this information is because the sources that I am seeking (from the Perry County Historical Society) are not published online. This urgency to delete this article feels a bit unreasonable and rather discouraging. I do not understand the issue with the external link on the article: http://perryvillepresbyterian.org/ It seems to work fine. (2014-04-30, 8:10pm US-Pacific Time) Markkaempfer (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Remember, the general notability guideline requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Even if the Perry County Historical Society source is deemed to be independent enough and provides significant coverage (and of course, I wouldn't know, since I haven't seen it) - we would still need another source. Userfication is perhaps the best option in this case, while the research is carried out. But AfDs last for seven days, so you still have a bit more time. StAnselm (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I would like to know the grounds on which article creator believes this church to be notable: there is no assertion of notability in the article, and if I had come across this while patrolling new pages I would not have hesitated to CsD it: from experience, this would likely have been accepted.TheLongTone (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment If notability is the case (assuming by that you mean being significant, well-known or even famous), then the vast majority of the thousands upon thousands of articles on tiny hamlets, villages and buildings found across the United States should also be deleted. By doing that, you turn Wikipedia into just another limited paper encyclopedia like "Encyclopedia Britannica" that only mentions very significant places of interest. Markkaempfer (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I understand things Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer, so places are judged worthy of inclusion if the meet certain criteria, such as appearing on census returns. Buildings are a different kettle of fish. Notability needs to be established. For instance by being on the register of historic buildings. Imo this content (& that of some other articles you've created} would be better included in the articles on the places.TheLongTone (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment From my understanding, Wikipedia is well beyond a mere gazetteer, and encompasses a much broader selection of articles than any other encyclopedia in existence, exactly because it does not function as the gazetteers or encyclopedias of the past. Markkaempfer (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand: wikipedia is, among other things, a gazetteer, hence the inclusion of places. However there is no need for an article on everything: there has to be a line. Hence wikipedia notabilty guidelines.TheLongTone (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I get that point, although I find it to be dispensed quite arbitrarily, considering with this definition of notability there seems to be an article on just about every other mundane third or regional league footballer (e.g. Yannic Thiel), unnotable former train stations (e.g. Isabella (CTA station)), unhistorical former hospitals (e.g. Fort Howard Veterans Hospital or Frederick Memorial Hospital), ordinary high school sports stadiums or fields (e.g. Nelson Field or Tom Kimbrough Stadium), run-of-the-mill roller coasters (e.g. Schussboomer or Diavlo), ordinary condos (e.g. 1500 Sheridan Road), etc. that we surely wouldn't find listed in traditional encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Brittanica or Encyclopedia Americana. I had assumed they were there because of Erik Möller's "Our job is to provide the sum of all knowledge". I can only assume the real reason must then be that no one got around to deleting them or there was no consensus on what should be deleted. Markkaempfer (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment If this article is to be deleted because it is not 'notable' enough, then I think we really need to take a look at the many other Wikipedia articles on various buildings (train stations, bars, diners, restaurants, condos, night clubs, roller coasters, hospitals, retirement homes, sports fields, etc.) that have nothing 'notable' about them either, as to avoid this whole process from seeming arbitrary. I keep finding more and more to which I would seriously put forth the question of 'notability'.  Markkaempfer (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete (with some regret) -- The consensus is that most local churches are NN. Someone seems to have been very asiduous in creating articles on a lot of churches in Perry County.  I could probbaly create articles on many of the churches in my local town, but I would expect most of them to be deleted.  Some are probably locally notable, in which case the appropriate course is to add a section to the article on the place where they are.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I respect the discussion here, but I feel I have to question this 'consensus' because it doesn't seem to be applied evenly, but rather at random. Why should my article get singled out when other seemingly unnotable articles don't?  What is the consensus on unnotable stations Isabella (CTA station), pubs 1321 Downtown Taproom Bistro, bars Hogs and Heifers, diners Cherry Hut, condos Park Place (Atlanta), residential units Hunter's Key (Tampa), Florida, night clubs Abbey Lounge, roller coasters Diavlo, hospitals Frederick Memorial Hospital, sports fields Nelson Field, and so on? Markkaempfer (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I entirely see your point. There are many articles on wikipedia about very unremarkable things, which people will defend with remarkable passion. See Articles for deletion/Fort Howard Veterans Hospital. However this is an argument for deletinng those articles, not keeping this one.TheLongTone (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment.....yes, I saw Articles for deletion/Fort Howard Veterans Hospital has been selected for deletion. Somebody put that article on the list for deletion only after I pointed it out, yet many of the other articles I pointed out are not notable and clearly have never been questioned despite being viewed by users.  The point of my argument isn't defined to merely this article, but the whimsical application of rules, which I am trying to point out.  I'm very clearly questioning the method for determining if an article should be deleted because it very much appears to be an arbitrary process and leaves me feeling singled out.  Again, I question why my article should be held accountable to the notion of notability when many other articles which don't fit the criteria of being notable (including articles by other users here) are not questioned. Maybe the problem is that I wrote an article on an 'unnotable' church when I clearly should have created an article on something cool, yet unnotable, such as average and run of the mill night clubs or biker bars? Markkaempfer (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2014 (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.