Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manarcad Church
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. (also withdrawn) (non-admin closure) Theopolisme (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Manarcad Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only source is the subject's own website Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I declined the speedy delete because I didn't think an A7 was appropriate. I then pretty much gutted the article, though, because of so much copying from the church's website, either verbatim or close paraphrasing. Plus, as the nominator states, there are no secondary sources (I didn't look for any). Someone who knows more about Indian churches and Indian sources might see if they can find something to satisfy notability guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - cathedrals are generally notable. StAnselm (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The question isn't about cathederals in general - it's about this specific one. Every "in general" by definition has exceptions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- This is a cathedral, not a mere parish church. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Is there any guideline that says cathedrals are inherently notable, or is that just conventional practice here?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No there isn't - because "inherent notability" is one of the most persistent myths here on WP. If this pile of rocks really is a cathedral there should be at least one mention in a newspaper or other RS that proves it, otherwise every other wannabe televangelist can declare their garden shed to be a cathedral. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not fond of inherent notability, either, unless it's guideline-based, but it doesn't really look like a garden shed, does it? Unless, of course, garden sheds are more elaborate in your part of the world. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And it's a cathedral of a denomination with over a million members. Hardly something set up by a televangelist in his shed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not fond of inherent notability, either, unless it's guideline-based, but it doesn't really look like a garden shed, does it? Unless, of course, garden sheds are more elaborate in your part of the world. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No there isn't - because "inherent notability" is one of the most persistent myths here on WP. If this pile of rocks really is a cathedral there should be at least one mention in a newspaper or other RS that proves it, otherwise every other wannabe televangelist can declare their garden shed to be a cathedral. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per my standards. It has at least three factors: "notably large for its denomination, either in the size of the buildings or its congregation numbers"; "It is the site of a major annual liturgical commemoration, or originator of a holy person's feast, or has been a major place of pilgrimage, beyond mere local interest"; and "It is a cathedral or basilica in the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, or similarly large denomination...." Bearian (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a cathedral of a major denomination. Cathedrals of major denominations are notable. This is called common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Question - There is absolutely zero third party evidence of any of these claims of notability. If it really is a "frightfully important cathedral" where is the evidence? What kind of "cathedral" has absolutely ZERO mainstream news sources? All the Keep arguments are based only on the self-published claims by the church itself. WP:COMMONSENSE applies only to "water is wet" type of claims. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "What kind of "cathedral" has absolutely ZERO mainstream news sources?" Clearly one that's in a non-western country that doesn't put absolutely everything on the internet. Like, I don't know...India maybe?! As long as it's part of a major denomination, the fact of its existence is usually sufficient to keep an article on a cathedral. They are notable by virtue of being cathedrals, a designation only applied to a small minority of churches. They don't have to be "frightfully important". WP:COMMONSENSE actually says: "Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- India has a very lively newspaper industry - it's not a dirt poor shit-hole like say, Somalia or Afghanistan. Nobody said anything about "on the internet" - dead tree sources are perfectly acceptable although all the major national newspapers in India are online anyway. You seem to have a rather distorted image of the state of ICT in India. But OK - keep this piece of unsourced crap, I'm past caring... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't have a "rather distorted image of the state of ICT in India". I've simply been on WP a long time and seen the big differences between available sources for this sort of thing in India and the West. And it's neither unsourced nor crap. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- India has a very lively newspaper industry - it's not a dirt poor shit-hole like say, Somalia or Afghanistan. Nobody said anything about "on the internet" - dead tree sources are perfectly acceptable although all the major national newspapers in India are online anyway. You seem to have a rather distorted image of the state of ICT in India. But OK - keep this piece of unsourced crap, I'm past caring... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "What kind of "cathedral" has absolutely ZERO mainstream news sources?" Clearly one that's in a non-western country that doesn't put absolutely everything on the internet. Like, I don't know...India maybe?! As long as it's part of a major denomination, the fact of its existence is usually sufficient to keep an article on a cathedral. They are notable by virtue of being cathedrals, a designation only applied to a small minority of churches. They don't have to be "frightfully important". WP:COMMONSENSE actually says: "Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I found articles in The Hindu, which I believe is the top newspaper in the country, about its annual September festival of the Virgin Mary; one was in the External links, another speaks of an attendance of thousands. I also found this, which may be about its elevation to cathedral status, but locates the church in question in Kochi; I believe the evidence is that it has enough coverage in reliable sources, as one would expect of a cathedral, but that additional article would be a big plus if it can be established to be about the right St. Mary's. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nomination Mainstream news sources have been found and cited. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:52, 15 August 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.