Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. George's Forane Church

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 delete. Arguments to the effect that 200-year-old churches are automatically notable are ungrounded in our policy and practice. Sandstein 17:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. George's Forane Church

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

Non-notable church. No sources found that support notability for this particular church. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to longer article for the same church at St. George's Church, Edappally. Notable by virtue of age and size. – Fayenatic L (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say it's the same church? They seem to be in different locations. St Anselm (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oops, I was fooled by the external link for the wrong church. Kudos to Chiswick Chap for sorting that out. – Fayenatic L (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - churches like places are generally notable by reason of their existence, and any church in India dating back to 1813 is certainly worthy of note. I've tidied up the article a little and added some refs. Obviously it would be nice to add a bit more of its history but that shouldn't be a matter for AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To say that (local) churches are generally notable is a bold statement that certainly doesn't have community consensus on Wikipedia. References are important, especially with this claim about 1813. St Anselm (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this picture doesn't look like a building from 1813. St Anselm (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's surely been messed about a lot since then. But I agree with you about the 1813; fortunately, the Archepathy link is a RS on that matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article does state that the old building is now used as a grave yard and the new building was build besides the old one. the image seems to be of new one. We dont have the statistics of number of Christians in the Kaipuzha town. However it seems majority of them are Christians. In that case if this is the only church in the town or biggest of them all, it becomes notable enough to stay. I will try and dig in info on this or ask others for help also. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Sources have been added but are all primary. IMHO the Archeparthy is sufficient backing for the 1813 claim. Unfortunately the "official website" is incomplete and appears to have been abandoned in April 2011. Trying an English news search, I only found a mention in an obituary; nevertheless, other sources could probably be found by people with access to media in local languages. – Fayenatic L (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with all of this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not at all clear that the Archeparthy link is claiming the church was built in 1813. The (1813) in brackets probably just means that the parish was founded in that year. It can not be taken as support for the age of the building. -- 202.124.72.200 (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fayenatic has found and added a source showing the new church was built alongside the 1813 one, kudos to him, so that appears to answer the legitimate concern. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Unfortunately the sources are not the best quality, and another tourism site calling the 1813 building a "famous shrine" is on WP:BLACKLIST so I cannot even cite it. I think there is just enough evidence for verification and notability to keep the article, although the refimprove tag should remain. – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, Fayenatic, but that doesn't actually say that the "existing church" was the 1813 one (in some cases in India, the original church was wooden, replaced early on by a stone church). -- 202.124.73.63 (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I can't find any reliable sources, in spite of trying all the search terms I could think of. You would think that a church converted into a cemetery would get more coverage. Perhaps local editors can find something? -- 202.124.73.63 (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 07:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no inherent notability for a religious building or a local congregation. The sources identified so far do not appear to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. That the old church (possibly) dates back to 1813 does not grant it notability. If this were listed as a designated historic building, then it would be different. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if the building was from 1813 (which I'm pretty sure it isn't), that still wouldn't imply notability. St Anselm (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why arent people reading the full article? It says the building was built in 1813. Another building was built later on in 1983. The new building is the one that is shown on their website. It obviously wont look old, as it isnt. I dont see lack of picture as a reason for deletion. 713 families of a small village being members of the church is a fairly good number. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can you explain how simply being built in 1813 meets any notability guideline? -- Whpq (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2012 (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.