Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gars Abbey

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. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gars Abbey

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

fails WP:GNG, fails WP:RS as only sourced by related sources and tourism sites. Info inconsistent with sources and the French and German Wikipedia. The Banner talk 22:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the French and German encyclopedias have articles, it seems reasonable for us to do likewise. Any issues of accuracy are a matter of ordinary editing and the worst case would be merger into a broader article such as Gars am Inn per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A monastery founded in 768 and still in operation seems inherently notable. Can the nominator be specific about "Info inconsistent with sources"? The errors should certainly be fixed. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The interesting part is that to my experience the correction of errors in fact never happens, not by the author, not by the editors who claim that it can be fixed. The Banner talk 18:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @The Banner: You have told us the information is not consistent with the sources or with the French and German wikis. This will not be fixed if you keep the inconsistencies secret. What are they? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. –Vami♜_IV♠ 13:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Against speedy keep. Can someone list any errors? Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG can not be denied, when there are puplications spanning centuries covering the subject. Agathoclea (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable building, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't even see why there's debate about this! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Really, there are some ludicrous nominations around. This is clearly one of them. Very obviously notable as an historic building and institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is another example of how to promote substandard articles. Something that is harming Wikipedia. The Banner talk 19:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - AfD is not cleanup. We are here to determine whether the topic is worth having an article on, not whether it's a good article. And the topic is clearly worth having an article on. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am still curious about what upset the nominator so much they felt this little article had to be purged from Wikipedia. @The Banner: which error or errors here do you consider most harmful to Wikipedia? Aymatth2 (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Try to read the other articles. The Banner talk 08:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        The French article is a translation of the German text. The German text cites no sources, so is unusable. It is followed by a list of canons regular with a source, which this version did not contain. @The Banner: is the missing canon list the reason you feel the article should be scrubbed from Wikipedia? If so, you will be relieved to learn that I have corrected the problem. Copy and paste to the rescue! Are there any other problems? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Seriously, I add some unsourced but plausible content from the de:Kloster Gars article with {{fact}} tags. Some of the information from this version could be added to the German version to improve it in return, but my German language skills are not good enough for that. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know, you often claimed that. And with that stance you promote substandard articles. The Banner talk 08:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep - topic clearly notable, GNG met. AfD is not for cleanup. Mjroots (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If the content is wrong, it can be corrected. A lack of sources is not a ground for AFD. The appropriate course is to tag it for improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article appearing in french and German means it's notable. Sources may be added later. Alex-h (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:BUILDINGS (notable people visited it, historical etc). JC7V-talk 07:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG, apart from anything else - even on Google Books, it's evident that there are sources from the 18th-20th centuries, and there are no doubt others which do not appear there. It also meets WP:NBUILD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2018 (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.