Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newport Beach California Temple

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. SpinningSpark 17:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newport Beach California Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing here to show notability. An article about the church's opening seems to be all that is on the web as far as news goes. It is a LDS temple, nothing more. I see nothing in policy that makes an LDS Temple inherently notable, and it certainly does not meet WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the 4 lines about the temple really have no meaning, or provide any foundation to keep this page. talk→ WPPilot  17:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All of the LDS temples have articles and because of the LDS's parishoners-only and secrecy policies for temple entrance, we can only do so much for sourcing. Leaving a big redlink for a temple in the second largest US metro area is definitely not the optimum result for an AfD. Nate • (chatter) 08:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the source for your statement that all LDS temples have articles? John from Idegon (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    See List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You will see there is a link to an article for each of the individual temples. Bahooka (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment :Articles here require sourcing from reputable sources. If it does not qualify it should go. IMHO it is just another church. The page is a page with photos on it, nothing on the pictures makes it look like anything more then another LDS building. "Leave it as we don't want a red link" does not meet the threshold that is required, WP:Notability It's just another building. One story in the register does not qualify. Every new building built and written about would then have its own Wikipedia page. Every city on earth would have each building memorialized with its own Wikipedia page. It has no reliable sources, and there is nothing special about it. The light goes off at 11? That's hardly notable. The color pink? FYI it is just inside the Newport Border and really more a part of Irvine, in 2002 the site was annexed by the City of Newport Beach, it was the entrance of the old #24 Coyote Canyon dump and landfill. Argument from User_talk:Mrschimpf contributes to this, meeting the "delete" threshold as it would seem the church itself requires "secrecy", let them have it and delete the page! talk→ WPPilot  14:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Temples are distinct and notable, unlike most LDS meetinghouses used for Sunday services (see Temple (LDS Church) for more information on the difference.) I have added additional references to establish this notability. Bahooka (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as you have shown, the temples notability is only to people that are members of the faith. That is biased, and does not represent a true consensus. "Temples are distinct and notable" is what your statement says and I would assume that you have something to support that. To a non Mormon, that is just another building. Nothing special about it and nothing about it other then its pink, is any different then other buildings. Sky scrapers are important to the people that work in them, should we have a page on every sky scraper? No. Other churches are important to its members, but does Wikipedia have a page on every one. No. The churches you mention also have historical significance, as well as a artistic flair that makes then, in Boston notable. The LDS Temple, built on what was once the Dump, (http://oclandfills.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=6648) yes I used to dump trash here in the past, it is not notable. It is another building to MOST of the world (non LDS). talk→ WPPilot  18:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link to the PDF has no context; it just shows some kind of red line on a 2008 Google map which doesn't define this landfill the building was placed on, and what does it matter where it was built? The overhead views in Google Earth do not show it was a waste disposal site in the recent past (years ago I can understand, but not recently), and calling it as 'the Dump' has an attack tone. Also, the LDS clearly has made their temples important buildings which each have individual elements about them; likewise we have articles about important churches, mosques, synagogues and cathedrals in other religions, but in the same way your neighborhood parish or gym/movie theater church doesn't have an article about them, we don't write about most individual stakes, only the more important temples. Again, a redlink to an article about a temple in the LA area would be a major loss to Wikipedia and should not be considered. Nate • (chatter) 20:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I grew up in that area, It was where the local "Land Fill" was located. ( the building actually sits on what was the entrance to the "Land Fill" FYI) It is not in any way as the Wiki states "Close to Fashion Island" the total claims that the page has are as follows. 1. It is a building. 2. It is a "temple" to a particular religious faith. 3. It was white but it is now pink. 4. It has a light that, unlike other temples goes off at 11pm. 5. It has the same gold statue on it all the other temples has and it had 3 local papers that published something about it opening in 2005. What is it that makes this a important building, other then the way it is perceived by members of that faith? The "We don't want a red link argument fails to provide the critical requirement that things here be notable", What is Notable about this place, to anyone other then a LDS member? Please do tell! talk→ WPPilot  22:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, it is just a couple of minutes down MacArthur to Fashion Island, so it is definitely close. Bahooka (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is about 5 miles away, that is hardly close, in fact it is half way across town. I grew up in Big Canyon so please do not tell me what is close to Fashion Island (&I fly here all the time). is that your only response to the above. Then you have no reply to the real questions is that correct? talk→ WPPilot  23:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To other editors reviewing this article, please take into consideration sourced information that adds to the notability (175,000 visitors during an open house) from KSL-TV, an NBC affiliate in Salt Lake City. The information, removed by an editor, is here. Bahooka (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment- also please note that rather than providing another source or discussing the reliability of KSL,a tv station owned by the LDS at the article talk page as is the prescribed behavior, he comes here and makes the comment above. This is rapidly becoming a cesspool. John from Idegon (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)'?[reply]
    • I tried, but it is hard to teach a brick to fly. talk→ WPPilot  01:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Umm, excuse me, this seems like bullying and other abuse. It is proper behavior to add material with sources to an article; it is improper to fight against an article at AFD by deleting material at the article. It is entirely proper to provide sources and to link to deletions of material, at an AFD. It is abusive to refer to an AFD as a "cesspool" and to call a legitimate, polite editor a "brick". --doncram 06:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The current version of the article is about 400 words and 7 sources (including 3 newspapers), which in my opinion meets the de facto requirements for GNG. Also, I give some weight to the point raised by Nate, that if all other LDS temples have articles and are considered notable, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the presumption of notability for this one as well. BRMo (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (revised), though redirecting to the list-article row about this temple would also be a possibility. I agree with statement above that there is nothing in policy that makes every LDS Temple inherently notable. I also agree that leaving a big redlink for a temple in the List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not optimal, especially if the topic is deemed non-notable by an AFD decision to delete. But that is simply remedied by delinking there, and putting a wp:anchor into the table there, and by using a redirect at the current name, redirecting to that anchor in the table. We have lots of big lists having many items that are worth listing, but not each requiring an article. It is fine for items in a list to be a mix of items notable enough for individual articles, and notable for the list item but not for an article. Another argument could be made that LDS temples are like Catholic cathedrals (higher than most Catholic churches, arguably all individually notable). With sources added, and with sources added but deleted by participants in this AFD, I believe the article meets wp:GNG so i think "Keep" is best. (revised). --doncram 06:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.