Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockville Stone Chapel


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Rockville Stone Chapel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Potentially in violation of WP:Notable, bearing only two sources. Stainless Steel Stalinism (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Stainless Steel Stalinism (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a documented historic site, designated California Historical Landmark #779.  Many/most editors recognize that historic sites listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places or in the higher ranks of U.K. listed buildings are presumably notable because of their historical importance and because of documentation being required by those programs and available.  The statewide California Historical Landmark system is another high-ish level of historic site recognition, higher than strictly local programs.  There are books and files and so on.
 * This site in particular has a long history already reported in the article, including now-historic-to-us preservation efforts, because of its previous historic importance. The article could be developed more, including to switch its infobox to use more template:infobox historic site with its striking gold/yellow coloring when applied to CHL sites.  But that is not of AFD concern. --Doncram (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep clearly satisfies WP:NBUILDING. Polyamorph (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Was WP:BEFORE even done? I have found sources that discuss this chapel that is more than a passing mention, and this was within 5 minutes of me searching.,, , , . Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Under first point of WP:NBUILDING. Nominator may wish to retract this? Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  16:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep (and might i say snowy, although it would probably quickly melt outside of the chapel:)), meets WP:NBUILDING, and a big congratulations to for their first article(?). Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, i note that the nominator is a brand new editor (hi ) (started editing on 27 Sept), nomination appears to have been made in good faith, and with a bit more experience (including reading all the, at times confusing, wikihelp pages/guidelines/policies:)) will continue as a net positive to WP. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - As contributor, I of course am voting to keep the article. I have found a couple more sources, which are fairly reputable, including the newspaper of the nearest city, Fairfield, CA.  I hope to integrate additional information into the article in the next few days, but, as you probably know, writing takes more time than it looks like it should, so it may take a few days. olef641 09:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Doncram's comment. Notable but the article requires expansion. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes my standards for historic church buildings -- listing on California's historic register, listing in at least two reputable travel guides, and notable for its weddings. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep clearly satisfies WP:NBUILDING other reasons mentioned, notably a landmarkDjflem (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm ba-a-a-ck. Note the expanded and improved article now up on the site.  I hope this meets with Stainless Steel Stalinism's exacting standards.olef641 01:56, 10 October 2019 (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.