Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Baptist Church, Columbus, Indiana

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 05:41, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First Baptist Church, Columbus, Indiana

Notability. I mean we can't include EVERY church in the world and I see nothing notable here nor can I find anything notable about it on google. --Woohookitty 00:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. There's no need to have an article where we describe minute details of a building, unless the building is notable; but this level of detail would be too much for any building. --Idont Havaname 00:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• I don't oppose the idea or including churches per se; but this is a terrible article and apparently has been so for some time. Reluctantly delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, It might be borderline, but considering it is from a PD National Historic Landmark website, which says: "It is an outstanding representation of the work of distinguished American architect, Harry Mohr Weese (1915-1998), and generally thought to be his best work in Columbus, where he was the most prolific contributor to the body of Modern architecture that made the city famous." Seems like it's not just any church. --Dmcdevit 01:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup given its heritage significance as noted by Dmcdevit. Capitalistroadster 02:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. National Historic Landmark sites are by definition notable. --Unfocused 02:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Unfocused, thanks to Dmcdevit for the research. JamesMLane 02:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for reasons noted above. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 03:51, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
• Keep Notable chuuuch Klonimus 05:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep You may not want to have an article about every church, but there is no reason why we can't. Gillian Tipson 06:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I believe this is a copyvio of some sort, even though the source is probably not on the web. Why else would this article have references to photographs which are not in the article? Sjakkalle 07:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • So rewrite it... copyvio ≠ non-notable (often quite the opposite). Agreed, however, that it's suspicious. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 07:27, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
  • It was copied from a public domain source. Kappa 09:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• National Historic Landmark, and of architectural significance therefore an article is warranted. The article claims at the bottom 'US govt text, public domain'. I think I'd need to know where exactly it came from to believe that, so should be cleaned up. Most churches will not be separately significant, and are only of local importance, so would not warrant separate articles (this does not mean they warrant no mention whatsoever of course) Average Earthman 08:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For Dmcdevit's reasons. And tidy up. akaDruid 08:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Dmcdevit has shown significant notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:08, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
• keep and tidy sounds good to me Yuckfoo 17:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep and cleanup, based on NHL status. (Playing hockey in a church?? No, the other NHL.) Most churches are not notable enough for separate articles but this one is. Barno 20:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Churches are not in and of themselves notable, but this is apparently a National Historical Landmark, so keep, but the article doesn't say it's a National Historical Landmark. There is nothing in the article which substantiates it as such, except the category, though it's clear from the title of www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/designations/ samples/in/1stbaptist.pdf that it is. RickK 21:13, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
• We can and should have an article on every church, mosque, synagogue and temple in the world. Keep. --Centauri 02:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • What a ridiculous idea. Why not every building in the world? Where's the article on your house? RickK 05:11, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • All enduring physical and cultural institutions belong in Wikipedia, as do historic buildings - such as the one I happen to live in - thank you for prompting another good article idea. --Centauri 22:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I just added some basic info to the top as requested on this page. Dreamingkat 04:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - and cleanup. Churches, schools, city halls, stadiums, etc all have durability over time either as places or insitutions. As such they belong.
• While I strongly object to having an article on every church, I do agree that this church is notable, so keep. Radiant_* 09:25, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep. —Stupid (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I will move it to my desk to cleanup. Linuxbeak 21:47, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree that WP should aspire to articles on all established places of worship. Centauri's house is probably not so important. Kappa 22:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Instutional vanity. --Gmaxwell 19:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- because it is surely more notable than some of articles on songs, movies, and music bands, some them known in their locality or to only to the creator of the article.--Bhadani 03:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP - it is a national historic landmarks for crying out loud. Kingturtle 18:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.