Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheelers Primitive Baptist Church


 * 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. There is overwhelming consensus to keep the article (with only two delete votes with seemingly weak and repetitive arguments). In short, the page seems to pass WP:GNG, but the article could still use cleanup (probably more sources). WP:DINC (non-admin closure) Aasim 08:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Wheelers Primitive Baptist Church

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No stated reason for notability beyond WP:ITEXISTS and it being photographed by someone in 1939. A quick search does not reveal anything more substantial. Fails WP:GNG. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 03:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment -- I so not feel qualified to say whether a church in South Carolina which traces its roots back to 1755 is notable for that reason. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep from the sources the church building dates to the 1830s so is of historic interest as is the church organisation dating back to 1755 with reliable book sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your comment reads a lot like WP:ITSOLD... Simply existing does not make even the oldest of buildings notable; the criteria is that it still requires WP:SIGCOV (and if it is of "historic" interest, then surely more than a trivial mention as the subject of a photograph can be found); and unlike those listed here, this building is neither particularly old nor, seemingly, particularly significant. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep All architecturally intact and interesting buildings at least 50 years of age qualify for National Historical Register listing. As such historically significant church buildings on this website are usually kept even if they are not listed.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete What utter nonsense. Merely being old enough to potentially qualify for the NRHP is not automatic notability which actual listing may bring, which has additional specific criteria and a review process. Absolutely no WP:V for claims of being an "interesting building" and "historically significant". Being old (WP:ITSOLD) is not a basis for notability, nor does it confer intrigue or significance. Sources fail to establish any of these or GNG with significant coverage. Reywas92Talk 00:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The church is historically significant. The article should be modified according to the references used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakibim (talk • contribs) 14:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Which sources are you talking about? I see that a boatload of external links were added recently, but they're all WP:PRIMARY sources (Church minutes and records (I assume death/baptism/et al.), pictures) which do not establish notability, merely existence. The sources in the article are also that (one is simply a listing of the church in the bibliography section of a book without any kind of commentary whatsoever)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - "McDannell, Colleen (2011). Picturing Faith: Photography And The Great Depression. Yale University Press. pp. 93–96. ISBN 978-0300184464" seems enough for GNG.  Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm being repetitive, but that source primarily covers the picture that was taken of the church. I doubt it is WP:SIGCOV of the church, otherwise such content would also be in the article, instead of the elaborate description of the pictures which we have. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree, that book has significant coverage of the church apart from the photograph. Note that WP:GNG includes coverage from sources where the subject is not the main focus of the work and whether the content has been added to the article yet is wholly irrelevant, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok so the book (or at least, this part of it) is available on Google Books. I checked page by page. The only thing that could qualify as coverage of the church specifically is the following:


 * Page 94 deals mostly with the emergence of Baptist reforms in the early 19th-century. The only mention of the church is in saying that they rejected such reforms:


 * The remainder of the text (up to the mentioned p. 96) deals with the attitudes of the church members, some of the specifics of how services were held (i.e. they "met once a month", a practice "not unusual in the South"), and the specifics of the photograph (permissions, what it depicts, ...). In short, in my considered opinion, this is not "significant coverage" of the church itself (and it's all already within the article), rather a few passing mentions as the writer of the text heads to the more significant – for the purposes of the book, which deals mosly with such depictions – photograph.
 * Some of the content could go in Primitive Baptists, and what little, if I deliberately misuse the term, "biographical" information there is could possibly be merged into List of Primitive Baptist churches, where most of the churches have a blue link – I trimmed away the rest –, are registered on the NRHP and have a proper article with sufficient coverage, eg. Primitive Baptist Church of Brookfield. While it's not notable, the broader topic is so I might support a merge (and then the article on the church itself could be kept as a reasonable redirect to the list) of the relevant information to the list article (which should be made into a table or something) – this is the usual for members of a notable group when all entries are not necessarily notable, i.e. see WP:SIA and WP:CSC. If you wish to ignore the usual procedures a bit and alter your close to "merge" as I suggest above I would not object. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  20:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's consensus for a speedy merge, definitely it would need to be hashed out here some more. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Numerically there are more keeps but RandomCanadian has brought up reasonable questions about those arguments that have not been addressed.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Being covered in a book by Dorothea Lange and a few other literary sources that even discuss the inner politics of the church during the early 20th century seems to demonstrate historical signficance. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lange did not write the book, someone else wrote the book about about Lange's photos and their subjects. This included dozens of churches and by no means indicates they individually have "historical significance", only that someone in history took pictures of everyday life during the Great Depression and took notes for context. Reywas92Talk 20:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to comment again for fear of WP:BLUDGEON, but yeah, see also the summary of the content's of that book above (there's even a link, if you can access the content from where you are). The only other apparently literary source cited appears to have been published by the church itself in 1944 and is only used as a source for alternative names; hardly enough for notability. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename > Wheeley's Church (photographs) or Wheeley's Church (Dorothea Lange) as photos are notable.07:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete simply put, this fails WP:N &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a historical church that is discussed in reliable sources. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Old ≠ "historical" ≠ notable.
 * Keep, I'm satisfied with the sourcing and the references to its records in a number of secondary works suggest to me that it's historiographically important, even more than its historically important.--Jahaza (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lange's works themselves were broadly historiographically important; there's little indications the scores of churches and other places she photographed are individually so. Over 4,000 of her photos are archived in the Library of Congress, any of which are arguably just as relevant to the history. Reywas92Talk 00:25, 6 June 2020 (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.