Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montréal Québec 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Montréal Québec Temple[edit]

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

Not notable. Not a listed building, not architecturally significant either. Only "sources" are LDS-related, which isn't independent enough of the topic. A Google Search turned up sites that were either unreliable blogs or LDS-related. Should be deleted outright, or merged to List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which already contains what little encyclopedic information there is about this building. p b p 14:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following additional temples for deletion. A google search has been conducted for each; each has turned up nothing notable:

p b p 15:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. 20:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. 20:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 20:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm wary of suggesting that every LDS temple is automatically notable, but this deletion would make these three the only temples without standalone articles, as far as I can see. Temples are a fairly big deal in the LDS church; they're much more like cathedrals than average church buildings. Ogden Stake Tabernacle was probably a fair deletion, but temples are a different ballgame. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and notify WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement about this entry. I'm not trying to canvass or anything; I just can't think of any other relevant WikiProject. Perhaps they can help with sourcing. (WikiProject Atheism for balance?) I think the delsort is covering most other interested parties. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an argument for keeping here, why these particular temples are notable has not been addressed or proven, and as such the "Keep" vote should be discounted. This amounts to an other stuff exists argument. Just because there are articles on temples doesn't make them all notable; some temples are more notable than others, and having similar articles exist doesn't make any of them notable. If all temples were notable, how come the majority of LDS temples have no reliable sources? (and mind you, there are many temples that could and should be deleted, some like Medford have already been merged and others will be deleted with future AfDs).

Also, the "temples-are-like-cathedrals" analogy is faulty. I explained why in the RfC on the notability of LDS microtemples, but here it is again: A catholic cathedral typically serves well over 100,000 Catholics (L.A.'s cathedral is something on the order of 3-4 million). None of the temples nominated serve more than about 25-30 thousand Mormons; Montreal serves less than 20,000. Cathedrals are usually old and architecturally significant; all three of these temples are less than 15 years old and built from the same architectural plan. And even if any of this stuff wasn't true in the case of these three articles, the whole "LDS-temples-are-notable-because-Catholic-cathedrals-are-notable" argument is another one of those "other-stuff-exists" arguments

Finally, it is canvassing to notify the LDS WikiProject. They are clearly a biased group p b p 04:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"L.A.'s cathedral", which I suppose you mean Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, does not serve 3-4 million people. It's simply the largest Catholic church in a city of 3-4 million people and in fact has a total capacity of 3,000, nothing near 3-4 million.--Oakshade (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, none of these temples can hold all 20-30 thousand Mormons at once. They can only hold a couple hundred. p b p 13:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for PBP's canvassing charge just for notifying the relevant Wikiproject, from WP:AFD: "WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more relevant WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the AfD."
PBP, if you'd like to change WP:AFD to not encourage notifying Wikiprojects, you need to make your case at the talk page of WP:AFD, not invent your own rules in a specific AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Key word: neutral. Canvassing is when you notify a partisan audience (per WP:CANVASS), and I believe the LDS WikiProject to be such an audience. 'Nuff said p b p 23:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Key words: neutral note. ("If the article is within the scope of one or more relevant WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the AfD." (italics mine)) BDD's note on the LDS Wikiproject page is simply a notification of this AfD [1] which is as neutral a note can get. Cherry picking a single word from a guideline to support a view that doesn't in fact match the policy is a classic example of gaming the system and specifically WP:GAMETYPE.--Oakshade (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As BDD stated above, these are the primary Latter-day Saints houses of worships in major cities or entire regions. The nom ordering the closing admin what to do is inappropriate. They can make their own decision. --Oakshade (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So? Just because they're primary houses of worship doesn't make them notable. Sources make something notable, and only sources make something notable. None of the Keep votes have addressed the fact that sources that aren't LDS/Mormon/Deseret haven't been found, and therefore no keep votes as of yet have a valid reason for keeping p b p 13:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PBP, do you always get this upset when people vote against your AfDs? AADD is an essay, and just because someone's making an argument like one of the examples doesn't mean it's invalid and that you need to appeal to the closing admin to strike it. Consider (from Wikipedia:Other stuff exists itself) that we do have a concept of inherent notability, and if we're going to apply it to "any high school," I feel plenty comfortable assigning that to LDS temples (certainly not any LDS building, however). Finally, if you're so sure my WikiProject notification is canvassing, feel free to notify another group. You say bias, I say expertise. --BDD (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get upset when people make really bad arguments that fly in the face of policy, which yours and Oakshade's "Keep" arguments do. If you were to say, "this is notable because of non-LDS-related Sources X, Y, and Z", you'd have a valid argument. High schools and LDS temples are apples and oranges; there has been enough consensuses as a result of many discussions and RFCs to enshrine "all high schools are notable" into a specific notability guideline. Discussions that claim all temples or cathedrals are notable have resulted in a consensus against all of them being notable, and therefore no specific guideline exists for religious buildings. In the absence of a specific notability guideline, what you do is fall back on the general notability guideline, which states that notability is determined by having reliable, third-party sources on the topic. There are no reliable sources in the article, my BEFORE search didn't turn up any, and you two haven't found any other sources. Therefore, according to the general notability guideline, these aren't notable. In essence, you and Oakshade are ignoring the GNG, which is why your arguments are invalid p b p 23:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting myself from my talk page, "How do you think policies like inherent notability get applied to subjects? Do you think it applies to high schools because they all have oodles of sources, so obviously ever high school meets GNG? That's at least as silly as my argument. It's about deletion outcomes. If enough people agree with me (probably over multiple nominations), we'll call it inherent notability. If they don't, I'll just look like a fool." --BDD (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@PBP, Forgive my ignorance, but what's the problem with "LDS-related" sources? I don't remember reading anything in WP:RS, WP:V, or WP:N about unilaterally rejecting reputable news outlets based solely on who owns them. The material being cited to these news outlets is non-controversial (dates, locations, square-footage, etc.) so COI doesn't apply. Are you suggesting that outlets like Deseret News LDS Newsroom cannot be used as sources for anything Mormon-related, or is your argument limited to Mormon temples? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've used the argument with tabernacles in the past, and with temples now. It all goes back to the idea that they have to be third-party sources to establish notability, and IMO, the official newspaper of the Mormon church (which is what Deseret News is) isn't third-party enough, just as you'd have to use something other than the Monitor for info on the Christian Science Church. But Deseret News isn't particularly germane, as the "sources" in the article are ripped from LDS-related websites. The general jist is you need something non-LDS to establish notability; sourcing of specific pieces of information is a little more lenient p b p 01:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. It looks like the articles are mainly sourced to the newsroom at http://www.ldschurchnews.com, which is an official publication/news outlet of the church. My understanding of third-party was that it applied more to people publishing about themselves than newspapers publishing about topics related to the organization that owns the newspaper. In fact, if you take the essay WP:Third-party sources, it says, "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter." and " A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials." As far as I know, the reporters who work for the LDS newsroom are not involved with the temples except in their capacity as reporters, and they are not writing autobiographies about themselves or promotional material. They're reporting dates, facts, figures, and quotes to a group of interested people, and that's what's being cited. I'll understand though if you disagree with me on the third-party bit.

On a different track, in my experience Mormon temples generate a lot of media attention when they're announced and built, especially in the locality where they're being built. (See, for instance this AP article highlighting 5 announced temples, and these many articles about the temple recently built in Kansas City. On the Canadian side of things, this 2006 article from a major Canadian newspaper is talking about the building of an LDS meetinghouse next to the Quebec temple.) After they're finished, there's the open house, which is also advertised, and can also generate media attention. The problem with looking for sources with a Google search is that the Quebec temple was completed in 2000, and most of the newspapers Google is looking at don't make their archives available that far back. So you're doing a news search of articles that go back to 2008 for something whose notability was primarily in 2000. (Remember that notability is not tempoarary.) If you look for more recent temples, you get all kinds of hits, so it's not a problem of there not being any sources, it's just a problem that most of them aren't showing up in your Google search. (I won't go into the problem of most of the Quebec papers being in French and the Mexican newspapers being in Spanish, which will also throw off your search.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even if you exclude LDS related sources, which is inappropriate in my opinion, it take only a few second to find a non-mormon source mentioning these two temples. [2] and [3], and I didn't look that hard. LDS temples are notable. As Adjwilley points out "Mormon temples generate a lot of media attention when they're announced and built, especially in the locality where they're being built." and notability is not tempoarary. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find it hard to believe that you can't find any reliable sources for almost any LDS temple. Claims to the contrary are largely not looking, or in the case of the temples in Mexico claimed above are likely in Spanish and may not be necessarily on the internet. Simply saying that somebody can't find a reliable source with a Google search from English language sources is hardly a fair standard to be applied here. Mostly, I echo ARTEST4ECHO here in that even with "non-LDS sources" you can find plenty of references... certainly more than the requisite 2-3 significant 3rd party sources needed to establish notability per WP:NOTE. I'd dare say you didn't even try if you can't find them. I would even dare challenge the original nomination claim that these buildings are not architecturally significant, as many have received awards and recognition in various ways for their architecture style or in other forums where such things are recognized. Again, it is a lack of even trying to search that such a claim may even be made and sounds more WP:OR to even make such a statement. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2012 (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.