Talk:Newport Beach California Temple

message: Cited content from KSL-TV about 175,000 visitors during the month-long open house was removed here, added back here, and then removed again here. I am bringing this discussion to the talk page to determine why an NBC-affiliate is not considered a reliable source for this information. Bahooka (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, KSL is owned by the LDS Church, but that doesn't automatically make anything and everything that is reported there slanted in some manner.  To presume that the church controls and slants all the reporting makes no practical sense.  If an editor decides additional sources would be good or helpful, that ought to be requested, but without removal of what is a perfectly legitimate source, particularly for something that is really fairly non-controversial.  To then put in the edit summary that unsourced content was removed is just simply false.  It was sourced - because a user perhaps doesn't like the source or thinks more is needed - becomes incumbent on that user to identify why the source wasn't good.  Also, the idea that edit warring takes place when there is simply one reversion, particularly when it's removal of sourced content isn't accurate either.  So, I am going to add it back, again, until an editor acting in good faith can somehow substantiate that the source is flawed. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor that removed it I am guessing removed it as it was 10 years ago. The topic here is notability and the lack of it. So far, we have it opened in 2005, and taking KSL as a fact, 10 years ago a lot of people visited, during the open house and that makes it notable enough to have a Wikipedia page all about the building, and if people that are reading about Newport Beach, to gain more information about Newport Beach that reader can come to the page about the temple, and gain more insight. That is verbatium what brought this conversation to this board. To a member of the community, (Newport Beach) that reads the page, what does he/she learn after reading about the building other then it is another building? It is only a special place to people that think it is a special place as someone told them that it is special, is that correct? talk→ WPPilot   03:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No,actually I removed it because it set off my bullshit alarm. I find it hard to believe that attendance at an open house for any house of worship anywhere would rival that of a major league baseball team. Therefore,I want to see an independent source for that figure. A media outlet owned by the same denomination as the place we are talking about is not independent. John from Idegon (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As an example, 20 years ago 92,000 people visited the Orlando Florida Temple during only a 3-week open house according to this article in the Orlando Sentinel. Considering how long ago that was and that Southern California has many more people, 175K for the Newport Beach open house is very reasonable. Bahooka (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

text: By the way, regarding most of the references being from when the temple opened in 2005. Please note that, per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.". There is no statute of limitations on references and notability. Bahooka (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourced content on open house 

message: An editor is adding in information stating that the building is located on the former site of a dump or across the street from the entrance to one. This use of reclaimed property would be an interesting part of the article. It simply needs a reference stating that the temple was built on the site of a former dump to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Looking at Google Maps, right now the building is situated across the street from another church, with a sports park on one side and more houses on the other. The references, including the map, given do not support the fact about a dump yet. If a reference mentioning the temple on Bonita Canyon was built on a dump is found, then please readd to the article. Bahooka (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Newport Beach California Temple, I am removing the dump information as original research. If a published document is found stating specifically that the temple is built by a former dump, then it can be added. The current references make no mention of the temple. Bahooka (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Located on the former site of a dump 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Newport Beach California Temple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140715005212/http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/sections/local/local_breaking_news/article_375840.php to http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/sections/local/local_breaking_news/article_375840.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified