Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Ignatius Church, Baltimore


 * 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. Not sure we ought to bite our established editors either. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Saint Ignatius Church, Baltimore

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article about an unremarkable church. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * New editor's first article nominated for deletion with 30 minutes of creation, without even a word of welcome. Way to be bitey! --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - How could this historic landmark go up for AfD? It's not me calling this a "landmark", but the Baltimore Sun in a source that was in this article at time of Afd.   Not only was WP:BEFORE not adhered to, but the nom didn't even seem to look at the sources in the article at time of AfD which demonstrated passing WP:GNG.  Other sources I found within 5 seconds.   The church also played a significant role in Baltimore's pre-Civil War African-American community.  Why was this nominated? --Oakshade (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nomination was ignorant (calling it a "Promotional article about an unremarkable church") and was wp:BITEy, coming 30 minutes after a new contributors first edit.  This kind of rude and ignorant reception is a big part of what is diminishing Wikipedia's scale of editing.  The church seems pretty obviously notable from sources that are now in article.  Even if the sources weren't there to start, it was wrong to start the AFD.  wp:BEFORE was not performed.  Better to contact an article creator and discuss sources, etc.;  opening an AFD is pretty horrible for a new contributor. -- do  ncr  am  02:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Happily the article creator has responded positively at their Talk page to invitation to provide photos (at least in context of some expression of support by me referencing other support here), and has has provided four photos to the article, uploaded properly to commons. One is a detail of a fresco by Constantine Brumidi, whose frescoes decorate interior of U.S. Capitol dome.  There was not previously a redirect from Constantine Brumidi to alternate spelling Constantino Brumidi, where there is an article, so connections are being made.  There will definitely exist coverage of the major works in the church, perhaps offline sources, i am not bothering to look for more as I think the revised article is clear KEEP. -- do  ncr  am  03:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Possibly keep -- I am no expert on church architecture, but this looks as if it is architecturally significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 16 December 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.