Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Harris Memorial Chapel of the Holy Trinity

:{{la|Mary Harris Memorial Chapel of the Holy Trinity}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mary_Harris_Memorial_Chapel_of_the_Holy_Trinity Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Mary Harris Memorial Chapel of the Holy Trinity}})

Article has no citations; fails WP:GNG. I PROD'd, but {{u|Necrothesp}} dePRODed, citing WP:GEOFEAT. The article claims the Chapel is Grade II listed, but no citation is given. Respectfully, I question whether Grade II listing is sufficient for GEOFEAT. There are around 29,000 Grade II listed buildings in the UK. It's not a very selective indicator of cultural heritage. Bondegezou (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

:*Even though the article had no citations, the fact that this building has a notable architect and that a notable artist created the ceiling should have alerted you that it was not an appropriate subject for a PROD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Listing by Historic England at any level clearly meets the requirements of WP:GEOFEAT and has been held to do so in many AfDs. For suburban houses the situation is maybe not so clear-cut (we would generally prefer to have an article on the street if there are a number of listed houses on it rather than for each individual house), but for churches and other public buildings it definitely is. I have added a link to the Historic England listing. Clearly a notable building, designed by a notable architect, Vincent Harris, and with a ceiling mural by a highly notable artist, Sir Walter Thomas Monnington. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep as a listed building. Blythwood (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep listed building; ceiling by notable artist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

::Comment My fellow editors above argue that any listed building is notable, as per WP:GEOFEAT. I note that [https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/hpg/has/listed-buildings/ Historic England] says there are over a third of a million listed buildings in England. I struggle to believe that when GEOFEAT was written it was intended to serve as carte blanche for a third of a million stub articles from England alone.

::But I recognise a snow-keep decision when I see one. I withdraw my nomination. I hope the article can be improved, as it is in dire need of work. (Thanks to {{u|Necrothesp}} for adding its first citation.) Bondegezou (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

:::I do agree we have to be selective to a degree (there are some streets and small villages where every other house is listed; we don't need an article on every one, although one on the street or village that lists them all would be a good idea), but as I said I think GEOFEAT definitely covers listed churches and other public buildings. Britain does list a lot of buildings (note that I think this is a good thing!); the only other countries that I've encountered in my many architectural travels that list so many are Poland and Romania. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

::::But if you're being selective, what's the basis for that selection? I don't see anything in the text at GEOFEAT that says we should include listed churches, but not listed houses. Would it not make more sense to, acknowledging the UK's tendency to list a lot, have some cut off? Say include Grade I and II listed buildings (which would include this one), but not Grade III (unless they otherwise meet WP:GNG)? Bondegezou (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::England and Wales use Grades I, II* and II, so Grade II is actually the lowest listing, covering 90% of listed buildings. I think it's common sense that public buildings are more significant than ordinary residential houses. You drive down a street and think "that's a notable church", but not usually "no.3A is a notable house", even if both are Grade II-listed. Technically GEOFEAT would cover both of them and I think that's no bad thing as a starting point, as it prevents deletionists from saying (as some would) "it's only Grade II so it can't be notable". Beyond that, use of discretion and common sense is fine. If every house in a terrace is listed (not an uncommon occurrence) then I would say that we clearly don't need an article on every house in that terrace (although I would agree with an article on the terrace as a whole), but that's down to discussion at AfD (and should remain so). We don't need rules for everything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

::::::Thanks for explaining about the grades. I'd forgotten about the II*/II thing.

::::::The problem with common sense is that one person's common sense is not always another's. It would seem more sensible to me to agree a cut-off of only Grade I and II* being automatically notable (ensuring equity with the architecture in other countries that are less gung-ho about "listing" than the UK). People above are saying "it's listed, so it's notable": I don't see any room for discretion there. If GEOFEAT was limited to I/II*, then Grade II buildings could be discussed on a case-by-case basis, with respect to the quality of RS describing them. WP:GNG is a very sensible rule, a bedrock of how Wikipedia works. That always acts as a backstop. But what seems to be the current interpretation, it's listed so it's notable, means a third of a million stub articles about Grade II listed buildings with no RS describing them and that does not seem to be the type of Wikipedia the broader editing community wants to build. Bondegezou (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::::That's why we have AfD discussions, so consensus can continue to prevail. If people think all listed buildings are notable then that's up to them. I may or may not argue against it depending on my feelings on individual buildings. But I think the status quo is fine. The fact is, we do not have stubs on anywhere vaguely close to a third of a million buildings and are frankly unlikely to have. But if we do, I don't think that's actually any problem. Listing takes a building, even a house, beyond just being "I've written an article about my house" prodfodder. These are buildings that experts think are nationally notable. Who are we to argue? Rather than being "gung-ho", I would say the UK is simply more protective of its heritage than most other countries and more willing to declare that a building is of historical interest, which can only be a good thing. Personally, I tend to apply British listing standards to AfDs on historic buildings in countries that do not have such a good (or indeed any) listing process. If it would be listed in Britain then I tend to be of the opinion that it should be kept in order to avoid any systemic bias. Naturally that can only be an opinion, but it's generally been successful so far. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::England simply has more historically important buildings than other countries because A.) It has been rich for a very long time; B). There hasn't been a war on English soil in which large numbers of major castles, towns, churches, etc were destroyed for a very long time (even the English Civil War was remarkably non-destructive; 3.) There was no programatic destruction of historic heritage a la Mao Tse Tung's cultural revolution; 4.) England is notorious for having had a more preserving attitude (the French melt the family silver down to have a news set made every time the fashion changes; the English use their Georgian silver.) The point is that the English may be more likely to list stuff, but they really do have waaaay more truly notable stuff to list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::A third of a million notable stuff? Really? Bondegezou (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::I won't vouch for every single listing one, but when you consider that the Soviet Army simply razed Warsaw to the ground at the end of the war, while the American air force flattened Dresden (a Nazi rail and precision manufacturing center - nobody in history every deserved flattening more than Nazi Germany,) and the Red Guards tore down thousands of centuries-old temples, well, you begin to see why England simply has more.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::Which is presumably why Poland tends to list pretty much every building that survived WWII! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep- Due to listing by Historic England.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.