Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incarnation Catholic Church and School (Glendale, California)

Add links
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The result was Keep, nom withdrawn (see note) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Incarnation Catholic Church and School (Glendale, California)

[edit]
Incarnation Catholic Church and School (Glendale, California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested PROD, local Catholic Church that apparently fails WP:ORG, no assertion of notability beyond a local scope, no independent sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This is a new article about a Catholic church in the San Fernando Valley, Los Angeles County, California. The church has been in existence for 80 years and has thousands of families in the parish. How can this possibly be a proper subject for deletion? It falls within the scope of two established Wikipedia projects, one on the Catholic Church and the other on schools. It also fits within at least four Wikipedia categories: [Category:Roman Catholic churches in California], [Category:Elementary schools in California], [Category:Roman Catholic elementary schools in the United States], [Category:Churches in Los Angeles, California]. The fact that an editor has to spend time defending a legitimate article against unsubstantiated proposals for deletion is a significant deterrent to good editors. Certainly, the article needs work, and that will happen with time. The proposal to delete was made within minutes after its creation. This is really discouraging. Cbl62 (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cb162 and WP:LOCAL attractions like this belong on Wikipedia as they are encyclopedic in my opinion. There would be local sources on this I'm sure. Wikipedia is a community encyclopedia. Entries like this should be encouraged not deleted. It's also well put together with nice images etc.--Sting au Buzz Me... 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being around for awhile is not (in it of itself) an assertion of notability. Likewise, being under the scope of a WikiProject is also not an assertion of notability. The bigger issue, however, is that the article cites no independent non-trivial sources demonstrating significant coverage, nor does it explain why the Church is notable beyond giving a history. I'm not attempting to deter the author from contributing content, its just that there should be a demonstrated notability beyond the scope of the local community for an organization to be included. It is for the same reason that many local fraternities are deleted. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, I could write an article about the church where my father is pastor: it is over 130 years old. It would fit under Wikiprojects Calvinism, Christianity, Ohio, and probably other things. It would fit into categories for Logan County, Ohio; churches in Ohio; 1877 establishments; and likely others. And remember: simply having a big number of families doesn't make it notable either. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, WP:LOCAL is an essay, one contributor's opinion. Its not a policy or guideline and shouldn't be quoted as such. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individual churches cannot be notable simply for being average churches, and elementary schools are not notable simply as elementary schools. They have to demonstrate that they are especially important, and the citation of sources is important. This article cites no sources to demonstrate why either the church or the school is notable. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not objectionable nor unpolished, in fact its actually very well written. As we said above, the article does not assert notability or provide non-trivial, independent sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of the other articles you listed above, one likely qualifies for Speedy deletion, and I prodded or took several of the others to AfD. However, some of them do actually assert notability and therefore are probably not subject to deletion. Please read WP:N and WP:ORG for a more thorough explanation. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pictures only are good. Text is blah. Needs to state number of parishioners. That is basic. Unless there is an insignificant number of parishioners I see no need to delete this. It is part of the essential fabric of the diocese, though it manages not to even give that! LA archdiocese maybe? One of the worst articles I have ever seen on a catholic church. But it should be kept with a lot of header templates about improvement of references, quality, etc. Not even categorized by diocese. No infobox. Cripes! All parishes are important just by existing. So are all high schools. Elementary schools are tough to justify and maintain. But I'm helping with a few. In another context, we have articles on roads. I hate to justify the importance of Highway 123 in Upper Saskatchewan over say, Route 66 or Interstate 5. Nevertheless, that part of the world can hardly get along without that (fictional) highway. It ie essential to the fabric of their existence. And so are schools. So are churches which IMO need noticeable buildings for an article. It would be alarming to have 50 articles representing tiny church communities meeting in peoples homes dominating an otherwise small area. Student7 (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a brand new article. Recanted some of my criticism. Give it a chance. Already scandal in there. You love scandal, right? A keeper. Student7 (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing a rural highway to a church for purposes of inclusion is not a valid argument. Roads are not actually covered under an inclusion criteria (although one is currently in a proposal stage, see WP:SCL), but for the most part, precedent so far has been that most highways that are above local or county in scope and link two or more major locales, or local roads that have some other significance are notable. Similarally, Schools are also being considered for a formal inclusion guideline, which states that Schools without verifiable, non-trivial sources or certain other criteria are redirected to the school district or city, town, or county. On the other hand, churches are covered under an inclusion guideline for organizations, which says that

"Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included."

This includes individual churches of a diocese. If the church is notable within the scope of that diocese, a mention can be included there, but typically a separate article is not warranted. There are exceptions, for example if the church building itself is on a historical register, or if the individual church has received non-trivial coverage in multiple sources. Otherwise, its just a local church. I'm not arguing against the fact that local churches are important to their communities, but normally they should be mentioned in the article about that town or diocese. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically this is boiling down to an I like it argument, which is not grounds for inclusion. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: As far as notability and verifiable sources, I searched the Los Angeles Times archives and came up with over 400 articles discussing Incarnation Church. I have added content and citations to several articles reporting on important events in the history of the parish. This parish has been at the center of not only the Glendale community, but also important social events, including the Raul Aguirre murder that almost resulted in an ethnic riot, the attempted rape of a 71-year-old parishoner in the sanctuary drawing widespread media attention, and molestation charges brought against the parish's associate pastor who fled to Sri Lanka and remains a fugitive. This is a highly notable church. Cbl62 (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is asserted by the cited history. The L.A. Times is an independent source, so I'm not understanding the entire rationale. the_undertow talk 02:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage, twice, in reliable sources (LA Times) is enough. Contrary to Nyttend, notability is demonstrated beyond just being a church. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something wrong with notifying the project responsible for the article of the proposal to delete? I don't understand the comment. Also, where is this clear precedent on individual congregations written, and who adopted it? If the precedent were clear, then I don't understand why there are over a thousand articles (my rough estimate -- nothing scientific) on Wikipedia for individual congregations. Cbl62 (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent isn't always the best argument for deletion because AfDs are taken on an individual basis. I think the accusation of canvassing is not that you notified the project, but that you opined about voting procedure. That's my assumption, anyway. the_undertow talk 03:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing is not cool, in fact, its against policy to ask people to vote for a particular outcome. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Cbl would be so gracious as to amend his comment as to a simple notification and remove any mention of voting procedure and reasoning behind a keep vote? the_undertow talk 05:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This whole discussion is bizarre and reminiscent of Farenheit 451. If it is wrong to post a message on the WikiProject page notifying them of the discussion, then I really am at a loss. I did not send spam messages to multiple people. I posted a single note on a single page that struck me as entirely appropriate. The guidleine you referenced speaks to "sending messages to multiple Wikipedians" and excessive notification. Again, I posted a single note. This entire discussion about deleting an article about a major LA landmark backed up by numerous article in the LA Times is discouraging. I've been editing on Wikipedia for about a year now, have created over 200 articles, at least 20 of which have been rated as good articles, have had almost 100 articles featured on the Did you know page, and have not yet run into this kind of effort to suppress knowledge and discussion. If this is the direction Wikipedia is taking, it's not a good sign.Cbl62 (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a disclaimer asking people to simply look at the article and decide for themselves. This is the first time one of my articles had become embroiled in a deletion debate, and I guess I take my contributions seriously (and criticism personally, I guess). I will now try to "cool down" and let people decide.Cbl62 (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Let's see, article was created 23:16, 11 april. One minute later Mr Senseless adds a proposed deletion tag to it. Nine minutes later (ten minutes from article creation) Mr Senseless makes this AfD. Six hours later Mr Senseless brings this AfD up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (where I learnt about it). Meanwhile the article creator, in spite this kind of disturbances, continue editing the article and brings it up to a fairly good article. I say Mr Senseless needs to read WP:INSPECTOR, then take a break and ponder it. Then read WP:CHANCE and take some time to ponder that one too. --David Göthberg (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The great improvements to the article Cbl62 has made establish notability. Giving an author some time to establish notability on a article that could have potential is a good idea and nominating such articles straight after creation should be discouraged. This is a good example of why. Davewild (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why must the largest group of people in America to assemble voluntarily each week be kept out of Wikipedia? The number of churchgoers in any area exceeds those attending sporting events (for example). Why must the activities of this huge group go unchronicled? To keep out this large group seems POV to me. They are not merely relegated to the "back of the bus," they aren't allowed on the bus to start with! Student7 (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple references in RS. Notability seems above and beyond an average church, Looks like if given a little time it will be a decent article.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is asserted by the cited history. Therefore, I don't see many reasons for deletion.--RyRy5 Got something to say? 15:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now hear this!

[edit]

Okay.... this has gotten way out of hand. This is not an issue of POV on my part, and I resent that accusation. I'm not on a mission to get church articles excluded, I'm a semi-practicing Roman Catholic myself. This was an issue of looking at whether a subject in question met certain guidelines for inclusion, which at the time, it didn't. My own Church at home is very important to the local community, I agree with that, and its of a similar size and history to the one in this article, but it hasn't done anything or had the necessary coverage to allow a Wikipedia article. When I saw the article at first, it looked like a run of the mill local parish which according to WP:ORG should not be included on the basis of non-notability in the scope of Wikipedia. Significance to the community/ Church community (I'm not going to go into theology here) and significance in the scope of Wikipedia are completely separate and one does not usually mean the other. Sources were found, and the due to the connection with the priest abuse scandals, we now can agree that the article does meet notability guidelines. I'm withdrawing the nomination because WP:N and WP:ORG are now unequivocally fufilled, notability is established.

The bigger issue I personally have is that I feel like this discussion has at times resembled group think, (i.e. editors voting keep based on emotion and the fact it was a Church) and sometimes felt to me as if it was being treated as a attack by WikiProject Catholicism. Issues of canvassing aside, I want to apologize to WikiProject Catholicism if that's how this was interpreted and for not withdrawing the nomination once the sources were established. Please assume good faith, I'm a new pages patroller and most of what I deal with are attack pages, vandalism, and spam, but usually I'm quick to tag something that doesn't look right, and for the most part my intuition is pretty good. I made a mistake, I accept responsibility for it, let's let it go and work on building an encyclopedia.

Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:11, 12 April 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Incarnation_Catholic_Church_and_School_(Glendale,_California)&oldid=1140203640"