Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogden Stake Tabernacle


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ogden Stake Tabernacle

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Doesn't seem to be any more notable than any run-of-the-mill church/LDS stake center. Not listed on the NRHP, poorly referenced. Also nominating Honolulu Stake Tabernacle for deletion on similar grounds:  p  b  p  22:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Procedural Note: The total list of articles nominated for deletion here are:
 * Ogden Stake Tabernacle
 * Honolulu Stake Tabernacle
 * --Oakshade (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, of course, since I created the articles. However, these tabernacles are not run-of-the-mill stake centers but represent an important period in LDS church architecture that transitioned from tabernacles to stake centers. These are two of the last commissioned tabernacles and had much more design considerations and resources put towards them than stake centers. There are not listed on the National Register of Historic Places, yet, but were and continue to be important places of gathering for LDS members in Ogden and Hawaii.Rplindsay (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't made an argument that addresses the deletion concerns, nor have you provided any evidence that a) the buildings are notable to non-LDS members (which they have to be to be kept), and b) that any notability can be backed with reliable sources not tied to the LDS church p  b  p  23:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Besides the sources in the article there are more indicating passing WP:NOTABLITY. . Designed by noted architect.  The non-NRHP designation is just a red herring as buildings can pass our guidelines for any number of reasons (I dare the nom to AfD the non-NRHP Cathedral of Saint Vibiana for the same reason).  Same goes for the Honolulu Tabernacle with very impressive sources already in the article (full link to one here, also included in this book) This is looking pointy. --Oakshade (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Cathedral of St. Vibiana was a cathedral for an archdiocese, the mother church for over a million Catholics. These are just the biggest churches in towns in Utah.  In addition, the Google Books link you provide isn't enough to assert notability; it is just a passing mention.  Nor is being the work of a noted architect...lots of notable architects have built non-notable structures; there are very few architects on Wikipedia (no matter how notable) that have all their commissions as Wikipedia articles.  Something being on the NRHP is a good indicator of notability...for one, to get something registered, you have to do loads of loads of research to produce a document that is readily available to the public.  Your accusation of POINT and challenging is completely uncalled for, BTW  p  b  p  03:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You were making the charge that because these aren't NRHP registrants that they're not worthy of inclusion. That's totally not true.  We go by significant coverage by reliable sources.  For your charge that the "google books" is just a passing mention, this very extensive article is far past the scope of "passing mention."  Since you didn't seem to comprehend the first time,I'll explain it again.  That source was also included in a book and that's what the link to google books was for.  Your opinion that you don't think that certain churches can be notable is noted, but not reality.  By the way, for your stipulation that "These are just the biggest churches in towns in Utah", Honolulu is located in the state of Hawaii, not Utah.--Oakshade (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your "very extensive article" happens to not count because it's affliated with LDS. As I pointed out before, you need sources independent of the LDS church (and BYU and BYU-Hawaii are not independent of the LDS church) to establish notability.  You continue to treat me as if I am unfamiliar with AfD; I have participated in dozens of them.  On the other hand, you aren't familiar with sourcing independent of the subject...the sources you've produced are either not independent enough of the subject, or not extensive enough.  p  b  p  13:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, the Deseret News was not LDS . As for the one other sources, you appear to be splitting hairs with the BYU Religious Studies Center being a primary source for the Honolulu Stake Tabernacle.  Sure, you can technically trace ownership of the two entities to the the LDS, but that doesn't mean the two aren't separate.  That's like saying Georgetown University's Georgetown University Press is not independent of St. Patrick's Cathedral. You can trace ownership of both back to the Roman Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean they are not separate entities. --Oakshade (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * From the Deseret News Wikipedia article: "The Deseret News is owned by Deseret News Publishing Company, a subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is a for-profit business holdings company owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." In other words, the Deseret News is LDS.  And please stop comparing LDS Tabernacles to Catholic Cathedrals: they are not analogous.  Catholic cathedrals are analogous to LDS Temples; maybe even above them since many American cathedrals serve more than a million Catholics; most LDS temples serve less than 100,000 Mormons.  Furthermore, there are plenty of non-sectarian publications to indicate the notability of Catholic cathedrals (and LDS Temples; and the LDS tabernacles that are designated).   p  b  p  16:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While the ownership structure of the Deseret News is interesting, it doesn't mean it's the same entity or a primary source of the Honolulu Stake Tabernacle. Just as the Williamsport Sun-Gazette is not a primary source of the Pittsburgh Pirates simply because you can trace ownership of both to Robert Nutting.  If the source was the fictional Honolulu Stake Tabernacle Newsletter, you'd have a point about that being a primary source.  Otherwise you're just splitting hairs here.--Oakshade (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You know perfectly well that the Pittsburgh Pirates and some podunk churches in Utah and Hawaii are completely different for a whole lotta reasons. Rather than enumerate all of them, I'll stick to the one that significant coverage for the Pirates can be found in publications that aren't linked to the owners of the Pirates.  p  b  p  22:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: The above Keep vote by Oakshade should be ignored, as no significant, independent sources have been provided, and the rest of the "argument" boils down to a series of inapplicable other stuff exists analogies p  b  p  22:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * PBP, I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to try to tell the closing administrator how to evaluate a particular !vote. Let the discussion stand on its own. --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete both. Could not find any significant/independent news or book coverage under these names or under the alternate names Ogden Stake Temple and Oahu Stake Tabernacle. All coverage found was basically "in-house," meaning Deseret News or Mormon-published books. In order to have notability the buildings or congregations should have made at least some local/regional mark outside of the church itself. These appear to be basically local churches, of no particular age or architectural distinction, not to be compared in notability to a Catholic cathedral or an LDS Temple. --MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as havign only WP:ROUTINE local coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (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.