Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Lady of Fatima Church, Kirol

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 merge to Vidyavihar. (non-admin closure) f e minist 05:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Fatima Church, Kirol

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

Was deprodded with a very nice message on my talk page, but no rationale for notability. 2 primary sources were added. The church definitely exists, but with no indication of notability. Searches turned up virtually no in-depth coverage. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Onel5969: The article is just stub and needs to be updated I have added 8 more sources to the article in external so it may be useful in expanding the article. There are many in the list and I don't think it fails notability Hope this gets resolved soon --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 15:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tiven2240 - The issue is the sources are either primary (like stuff from the diocese, etc.), unreliable (like wordpress), or are simply trivial mentions (like the India Times piece). I searched and could find no in-depth references from independent, reliable sources. Take a look at WP:RS regarding reliable sourcing, and WP:GNG, regarding what constitutes notability. Be more than happy to change my mind if sourcing can be found. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: @Peterkingiron: The external links I have added also have Government sources to it. Aren't Government sources reliable?. Whereas I have mentioned the article is still in it's creation stub form it may be extended by an another editors by the help of my recent souces added to them. Atleast this article has some notability then the following articles which don't have the so called reliable source and yet exists in mainspace.

--✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 10:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✝iѵɛɳ२२४०, To be kept, what an article needs is material about the Church found in reliable books and news publications, or, sometimes in academic sources, with in-depth discussions of things like the role of the church in a particular community, notable activities that take place at the church (such as a saint's day festival, or a concert of sacred music that attracts attention in WP:RS outside the local area. Or, sometimes, a church is notable because of a notable priest, or an event (such as the baptism or wedding of a person who was beatified,) but in all events, we need coverage in WP:RS to establish notability, not in local websites and routine government reports. Some of the church you have listed need better sources or they are unlikely to be kept if brought to the attention of editors here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- It is always difficult to tell when one just has a stub, but this looks like a NN local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Vidyavihar. Not enough detail in sources to support separate article at the moment.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Vidyavihar#Kirol Village wehre text on this Church as the center of a village/neighborhood community already exists. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (changed vote) as others have suggested. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2017 (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.