Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cumberland Presbyterian Center

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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: 'There are editorial decisions that need to be made about this article. They can be made on the articles talk page.' J04n(talk page) 12:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland Presbyterian Center

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

Non-notable building. Only sources I could find were from the church and denom. JFH (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Historic neo-Gothic building, headquarters of a mid-sized Presbyterian demonination and focus of a noteworthy campaign to keep the facade of the building. Also outside sources have been added to the article. JASpencer (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - JASpencer has summarized the reasoning well. --Orlady (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest a merge with Cumberland Presbyterian Church. As far as I can make out, this is a denominational headquarters lcoated in the church building. If so, the two have no separate notability. HOwever, I bewgin to be convinced by the preceding votes. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar confusing - there is an article about a church (as in denomination rather than a building), and an article about the churches headquarters which is called the "Cumberland Presbyterian Center (CPC)". The CPC was in an historic building at 1978 Union Avenue but now isn't any more. I think this may be an article about "1978 Union Avenue" rather than the CPC which makes me wonder whether it is misnamed and contains too much content about the rebuilding of a new center which would be better merged with the article about the church. ~~I will ponder.~~ ---- _nonsense ferret 05:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC) After some thought, I still prefer separating the history of the building from the details of the workings of the church headquarters. The former is probably notable enough for own article (would be interesting to clarify what the building is known as now it is a fast food place - CPC name probably moved with the church?), the other merge into the church. ---- _nonsense ferret 23:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The historic building still exists (AFAICT) and still seems to be known by the name "Cumberland Presbyterian Center", so that is the logical name for an article about the historic building. The fact that the denomination has a new headquarters that is known by the same name is a complicating factor, but it seems sensible to cover both buildings in this same article. Per WP:COMMON, we should not be making up new names for articles (such as the suggested "1978 Union Avenue"). If at some time in the future, the historic building starts be known by some other name, then the article name could be changed, but for now the current article name is appropriate. --Orlady (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong, but from what I've read only the facade exists now, and publicity the address has now received locally seems to note it as the 'Midtown Memphis Chick-fil-A' - or the 'Union Street Chick-fil-A'. Such references I've found to the CPC at Union Street seem to be out-of-date web links which predate the move to the new location. ---- _nonsense ferret 19:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not advocating keeping or deleting; just a comment on nonsenseferret's comment. When writing about federally-designated historic buildings in the USA, it's quite common to discuss the organisation that built the building, some of its pre-building activities, its activities in the building, any entities that used the building after the original occupants left, and a little bit about the original organisation after they left, if they remained in existence. This building doesn't and didn't have federal recognition, but I don't see why we couldn't provide the same type of coverage of this building if we find it worthy of an article. Nyttend (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that treatment would be reasonable if we can establish that the building on union street is still known for its connection to the CPC, and frequently referred to as such, otherwise I feel, and I accept I may be the only one, the article will confuse more than it clarifies. ---- _nonsense ferret 19:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, is the article about the building, or the organization? I'm confused. The operational aspects of the organization in the article as it stands should probably be Merged into the over-arching Cumberland Presbyterian Church article (as they are wholly unsourced). Then perhaps keeping a stub about the building itself, if it can pass Notability. And, what's up with the six red-linked references to meeting notes? (There's really only two refs in the article that are any good—both pertaining to the building—not the organization.) GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 09:09, 11 February 2013 (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.