Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noddfa, Treorchy

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noddfa, Treorchy[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. ColonelHenry (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a building that has some significance in the history of the south Wales valleys. Cannot understand argument for deletion!Macs15 (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm finding evidence that Macs15 is right: it played a significant role in its sphere. I've added another source that had information on the building, and the Treorchy choir's history page has a photograph that may be old enough that we can use it. I've also added its full name: Noddfa Welsh Baptist Chapel, Treorchy / Capel Bedyddwyr Cymraeg Noddfa; that may help in finding additional sources. We shouldn't let the loss of Google News Archives make us too quick to infer lack of notability, and I'm thinking that fire must still be recorded somewhere in the media. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have been both a notable chapel and a large and impressive piece of architecture. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though would like to see sourcing for the superlatives "one of the largest and grandest" - when unsourced, this kind of language becomes a target for AfD since it looks like an attempt to make something look notable that might not actually be. -- GreenC 03:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being covered in detail in sources such as Valleys of Song: Music and Society in Wales 1840-1914, the topic passes the general notability guide. Andrew (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2014 (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.