Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph's Catholic Church Meenkunnam

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 redirect. The arguments to keep are weak, and mostly do not focus on the actual reason for then nomination, which is the lack of reliable sources. Given the concern of avoiding systemic bias redirecting seems appropriate. There are two suggestions for an appropriate target, since two users supported Meenkunnam I will redirect it there, but the subject is still open to discussion of course. Any content worth merging can still be pulled form the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

St. Joseph's Catholic Church Meenkunnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unsourced page on a building that fails WP:N. There are no Google books, Scholar or News Archive results, and only 13 Google results, all of them Wikipedia based. This means that we don't have a single source outside Wikipedia available about this church. Making the Search terms less like the actual article title returns some things, but still not sufficient to establich notability. The famous Pieta also gives very few results. Fram (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete for a lack of references that would establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete also for lack of (non-Wikipedia) references. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as it seems notable, but needs secondary sources. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Question - Is the sourcing/notability issue one of language rather than existence? Perhaps Hindi (or other language sources) exist. Perhaps someone in the WP India can help find some relevant sources... LadyofShalott 05:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a very good point. The church seems like a very notable one in India, there is bound to be an Indian-language website talking about it. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is this church notable? Having a copy of Michelangelo's Pieta? I've got a copy too. Is my house notable? --Quartermaster (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a claim of notability regarding the pilgrimage routes. Now, I am not saying it actually is notable for this or anything else, just that it may be. It would be nice if someone with access to and ability to read materials other than in English could see if there is anything in Hindi or some other Indian language that would support notability. LadyofShalott 18:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep as the references are very much authentic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayakrishnan.ks100 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I have added few ref sites to the article. the page is very much authentic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobanjohn (talk • contribs) 06:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Reply to the very similar last two comments: the sources are the diocese (not independent), Wikimapia (not reliable or significant), Chruches in India.com (not significant), and again Wikimapia. None of these helps to reach the minimal requirements of WP:N, our notability guideline. That the church exists is quite clear, but that is not what we are discussing here. If you want to keep the article on this church, you have to provide reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of it, not just passing mentions or the name and address. Fram (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Commment: I am sympathetic to the problems of Indian articles and sourcing, but really we have nothing to show this church is any more notable that the scores of American church articles that regularly get deleted. Not a perfect resolution, but since it seems to be the big deal in Meenkunnam (its half the content of that short article), let's redirect there until and unless independent notability is shown.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• That seems like a good suggestion, esp. given that several days since my initial query along these lines, no one has apparently found the evidence of notability. LadyofShalott 05:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Redirect to Syro-Malabar Catholic Diocese of Kothamangalam as that's the next hierarchical stop for this church on en.wiki. Nothing really to say that it's notable. Churches in Kerala/Tamil Nadu will get English press coverage at least in terms of Mass/Feast listings etc if they tend to be high profile. —SpacemanSpiff 18:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

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.