Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Former Military Chapel (Bachelor Quarters)


 * 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. Tone 16:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Former Military Chapel (Bachelor Quarters)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A single building with no independent notability, sourced to a coffeetable book and a now removed self publhed work. Qwirkle (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  06:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  06:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep A historic building per America Preserved: A Checklist of Historic Buildings, Structures, and Sites. Andrew D. (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That does not address the issue of independent notability: at best it is an argument fot merger. Qwirkle (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not independently notable. In addition, the article text seems to have been copied from this this page, which is an attempt to sell a stock image of the building.-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge - The one source in the article is a fairly brief paragraph, and the source posted here by Andrew is literally just a listing of the name and location of the building, with no further information. Not enough to establish independent notability, but certainly enough to warrant a merge to the main Alcatraz Island article.  Though, as pointed out above, the text matches the text on that image page, so the merged information should be rewritten if its established that the information was copied from that site, and not vice verse.  169.232.162.112 (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge Violated WP:Before. Meets WP:GNG.  WP:I don't like it is not a policy based reason to delete.  WP:Not paper.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Care to point out exactly what you are seeing that can be considered an argument based on WP:I don't like it? Or are you just randomly throwing pointless accusations out there? 169.232.162.112 (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. If the information fits nicely on the main page, so be it.  If not, a spin off article is the proper course to hold the information.   D r e a m Focus  16:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. To the deletion nominator, you should not trash the article by removing a principal source to make it look bad, then nominate it for deletion.  An opponent of an article should not be deleting content, sourcing before or during an AFD.  Leave the material/sourcing in, and make your argument if you must that the content/sourcing doesn't speak to notability.  But you're wasting everyone's time if you appear to be trashing the article to make it look bad so you can get your way.
 * Anyhow, "Keep" per others arguments here. And the source seems valid for detail it supports. --Doncram (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

--Doncram (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s a self-published source. It should never have been in this, or any other article, in the first place.
 * And no one beyond the creator needed to do anything to make this “look bad”. It looks bad because it is bad. It is an attempt to impart separate notability to unremarkable structures at a notable place. Qwirkle (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The deletion nominator deleted the sourcing again, and I restored it. If they repeat, I will not.  However, if they repeat again, would an administrator please block them for edit warring.  And it is nonsense that you get to delete a source for material in an article just because it is supposedly self-published.  That is NOT valid reasoning.  The source is the source for the material.  Self-published or highly non-independent sources can definitely be used in Wikipedia, particularly for non-controversial facts.  The deletion nominator evidently accepts the facts are correct, because they leave the content in the article, just removed the source.  You don't understand sourcing, apparently. --Doncram (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * First off, there is no “supposedly” about this. Authorhouse is a vanity publisher, it allows stuff which can not attract a normal publisher into print, if the author pays them enough. Next, when an entire rat’s nest of intertwined articles all contain the same sourcing, it’s a fair bet that those cites might not have been selected for the good of the reader. At best it’s for the convenience of the writer, at the worst it’s a form of promotion of the work cited. Next, the cite does not support the claim made. (You did read it before restoring it, right?) The article states the chapel was used for Sunday school classes, neither unexpected nor particlarly noteworthy, but the cite talks about a different building, the Social Hall. The cite does not support the article, it contradicts it, and yet you’ve added it twice now, ? Yeah, maybe some admin attention is needed here, alright. Qwirkle (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, don't merge. Per . Britishfinance (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.