Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church (Jefferson, 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 no consensus. This has been relisted twice and while, granted, there's more keep !votes than there are delete !votes, a consensus hasn't been established in my opinion ... There's a lot of protest over the sourcing (primarily an article) and whether they meet GNG. I appreciate everyone remaining civil and understandably this is a passionate subject. With this conversation being rather in depth, and contentious, there's no prejudice over a speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church (Jefferson, North Carolina)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Generic local congregation, no substantive third-party sources to assert notability. Reywas92Talk 23:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete -- an unremarkable local congregation by appearnces. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GEOFEAT guidelines. It seems to a be historical architecture and the fact that there is little references on it should not be reason for delete, as this place is built in 1899 so there won't be much recent news on it.  ~Leny  Tee55~  07:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Simply being old does not guarantee notability. Little reference is exactly why it should be deleted. Actual historical architecture, rather than any old building, would have independent sources on it.
 * Keep per above. While the Catholic congregation itself is not notable, the building is a historic one for the area. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well are there any notable sources establishing notability for the building, like a listing on a historic register? Still fails GNG and WP:NCHURCH. Reywas92Talk 18:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Rule of thumb for editors considering nomination churches for deletion: American churches that are a century old or that are or were large can almost always be sourced. Let's  test that assertion with this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:HEY Keep Coverage is right where you would expect it to be, in reliable newspapers and in the guide to historic architecture in the region published by the state university press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per E.M.Gregory's statement above. The sources added indicate historical notability. I think it passes WP:GNG. Skirts89 09:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete As far as I'm concerned, local historical significance doesn't automatically equate to GNG. Trillfendi (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * delete People simply are not reading the article carefully. This is an article about a parish, not a building, which by the way the parish hasn't occupied in some years anyway. The narrative is routine: Catholic parish starts in the 1960s, taking over existing building which happens (possibly) to be historic; eventually it outgrows it (as is commonplace for Catholic parishes) and they build a new church. there is no real notability in any of this, and the sources about the parish reflect that. Mangoe (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please AGF, I see no reasons to conclude that editors are unaware that this congregation moved into an historic building.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - there is a book source, there are newspaper sources, there is the site of the congregation itself as source for statements about itself. Clearly meets GNG. XavierItzm (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:HEY as extra content and references showing significant coverage in reliable sources have been added so there is no valid reason for deletion, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - added Navbox for Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh since St.Francis is a member parish; added See also section. Article improvements to better integrate into Wikipedia. JoeHebda (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment changed to Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, as St. Francis is in the Western diocese. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * RANT Could people please look at this a bit before commenting??? The book reference is not about the parish; it's about a building they no longer occupy and which was built for someone else. The coverage is routine for a local church. I actually bothered to look at both buildings, the old and the current: the former now houses some independent Baptists, and the latter is a typical small modern church. There is no notability here; it's just another minor Catholic parish. Mangoe (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The book documents that this congregation purchased and occupied for over half a century a church building erected by a different denomination in 1899. Details about the congregation's history, including the buildings it has occupied, are reliably sourced.  Notability by no means depends on the historic building, but it is part of the history of the congregation and contributes its mite to the notability of the parish.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it really doesn't. Catholic parishes started in the 1960s are a dime a gross, not merely a dozen. Starting out in someone else's old building is not especially odd, and it didn't achieve notice outside the locality. If the building is historic, then write an article on the building, but the parish is just another Catholic parish. Mangoe (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion in a university press book doesn't "contribute its mite to the notability of the parish"? - seriously?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * While I am unable to read the page in question without getting my hands on a physical copy, probing with GBooks seems to say that the parish isn't mentioned at all, and the building gets no more than a very brief listing and not a "discussion". From what I can see, the material in the guide is not enough to write an article on anything it lists, but again (and it is really beginning to irritate me the number of times I'm having to repeat this) this isn't an article about the building, and the parish hasn't occupied it for years, in any case. Notability is not inherited by formerly residing in a (minimally) historic building. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Here: is the snippet from the book that I found online" "Across the street the former Jefferson Presbyterian Church (now St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church) (ca. 1900; sw corner of Main and Ivey Sts.) is a shingled Gothic Revival church with corner bell- tower. Nearby the little William B. Austin ..." But the article hardly relies on that alone, there is a good deal of detail in the newspaper articles about the history of the church and its buildings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * they no longer occupy is a canard repeated above more than once. This is an unencyclopaedic argument.  Entries do not get deleted from Wikipedia because they no longer are, or because they no longer are there, or because they moved.  Albert Einstein is no longer; we still have an entry for him.  Berlin's airport Johannisthal Air Field is no longer there at all, but we still have an entry for it.  London's main airport moved from Hounslow Aerodrome to Croydon Aerodrome on 28 March 1920, but we still have an entry for Hounslow Aerodrome.
 * Policy requires the WP:GNG to be met, which it is here through material such as book citations, journal citations, etc.; arguments ad tempores which have no basis on Wikipedia policies have no place on Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically, it is not a canard that they no longer occupy the building, because it is true that they do not. I have repeated that point because, other than the kind of local media coverage that is typical of any congregation which erects a new building, this is the only claim to notability. But the fact that the parish vacated it and presumably passed it along to the Baptists who now use it emphasizes that the building and the parish are not the same thing, and that an article which isn't about the building is not justified by that former residence. Mangoe (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete since there doesn't seem to be a good merger target. "St. Francis of Rome Catholic Church in Sparta, North Carolina is a mission of St. Francis of Assisi Church", per WP:BRANCH. If the building is notable, then the page should be made about the building, then the church, which moved into it in 1960 be added as a section. Notability does not transfer to the new owner or new tenant from simply becoming the new owner or an occupant of a presumably notable building per WP:INHERITORG. It's described as the only catholic church in that city. Given that it's a city with a 2010 population of 1,611, and declining, this doesn't add to notability. Graywalls (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 14:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The argument for keeping, however, does not depend on the historic buildign the church worshipped in for half a century. The argument is that while the article was at AfD, substantive coverage of the founding  and history and activities of the congregation were found and added to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 16 April 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.