Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillyer Memorial Christian Church (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 keep. (non-admin closure) JC7V -talk  16:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hillyer Memorial Christian Church (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)
 * Nom, User:DIYeditor, have you read the church's history page and used search terms found there as keywords in searches? Did you consider tagging th epage for improvement?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sources include:
 * "A Story of the Women's Work at Hillyer Memorial Christian Church, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1916-1974," H.G. Jones, The North Carolina Historical Review, vol. 53, no. 2, April 1976, pp. 193-214.
 * New surprises from Hillyer Chorus, Tonkonogy, Alwin. News & Observer;08 Dec 1998: E8. a music review of the church choir in a major daily paper, " Conductor Paul Conway eschews the standard repertory and for many years has performed music which most of us have never heard. In his 28 years with his fine chorus, he has introduced at least 44 compositions of unusual interest which are rarely, if ever, performed by any group in our area or, for that matter, anywhere. The 75-voice chorus sings with a rich, full tone - particularly impressive in the relatively small church. The tenor section is strong and is superbly balanced by the larger bass section. The sopranos are thrilling, and the altos are fine, too. Conway has done well in his training of his singers. The chamber orchestra played beautifully - the full, rich tone of the large brass was heard to advantage...."


 * Frankly, and irascibly, I suggest that Nom withdraw this entire group of deletions of notable, old churches, and leave them tagged for improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * First source yes. Second one sounds like a passing mention in a local interest story. From NCORP, and this is significant, coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies is excluded. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A music review of a church choir and the work of its choir director in a major regional daily is an excellent source supporting the notability of a church. I coninue to urge Nom to withdraw these hasty nominations in a subject area wiht which he is apparently unfamiliar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My reading of NCORP would make coverage of a Raleigh church in a Raleigh paper a purely local interest story. I think an additional source is required here. The standards for organizations (WP:NCORP) were tightened, which you may not be aware of. It is required that the topic be of relevance beyond the local area. Further, each nomination should be considered on its own, the Antioch one was patently unrepresented in available media. There is no need to wikibully here, these were poorly constructed stubs. The time spent on making 5 should've been spent on doing 1 or 2 properly. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * actually, no. When an editor is persuaded that a topic is notable,it is entirely legitimate to start an article and then step back.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To me making a number of articles that would not pass AfC or might even be subject to CSD is not good editing. CSD A7 This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, organization, web content, or organized event[8] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions. was new so it's understandable (these still should've gone through AfC), and you were the one who directed accusations of bad editing at me so I am replying. I would further look over articles listed on my user page as representing my work at some point in 8 years. And would revise one after a failed AfD that brought up some potential notability. Also I have corrected it a number of times, please make note of MOS:LISTGAP which is very important for accessibility reasons. Some editors use screen readers. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I second this notion. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If the sources are readily available it's as easy for you to add them to these articles, which should be done when creating them, as it is for me to go back through each one and see if I can dig more up. The Antioch article was the worst of these but the rest are not clearly into the realm of passing GNG and NCORP as far as I can tell. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I wrote most of these article's in 2010, when I was a high school student. I barely even remember writing them. Not that it's necessarily a valid excuse, but I was still learning about how to use Wikipedia at the time. I haven't kept track of any of these articles in years. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep this church had a notable choir director, in addition to the sources I noted above. I'm sure there's more out there, and that our time is better spent improving articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, per E.M.Gregory. --Doncram (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - a notable and noteworthy local building and congregation. XavierItzm (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep individual churches do not come under WP:NCORP so local and regional sources which have been provided are acceptable to pass WP:GNG regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why don't individual churches come under NCORP? Same as an individual company, store, restaurant, club, etc., etc. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2018 (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.