Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Lady of Pompeii Church

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 delete and redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore#Parishes. Promotional and probably copyvio: "Our rebuilding campaign..."

First delete, and then redirect. DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Pompei Church[edit]

Our Lady of Pompei Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I find no evidence that this article conforms to WP:Notability guidelines. Not a single source is officially referenced, so its made up of lots if not all original research. Also the article is told primarily from a first-person point of view. Display name 99 (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete A rather folksy home-grown parish history but lacking in sources. Even searching the variant spellings all I found were a few passing local color references about businesses, etc. in the neighborhood. Seyasirt (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although the article could/should be moved to correct spelling and for the title to cover the former school as well. I added a bit about the Our Lady of Pompei high school. There are at least 674 alumni of the school; it went through the 12th grade; its historic building has been renovated into apartments. High schools are notable; notability is not temporary. I note that the current informal content may overlap from this webpage "About us" (although it is not clear whether that webpage or the wikipedia article had the text first), which can easily be addressed by editing down that content. --doncram 17:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid any issue of copyright, i stripped out the text which overlapped. It is a "historic" church, opened in 1924, which would probably be eligible for listing on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. While not old relative to European history, it seems to have been important in the ethnic history of Baltimore. There are numerous sources given as external links in the article, though at least a few of those links have gone bad since the article was set up. However Wayback machine can be searched to find those topics. I am reasonably sure that there will be coverage of this church in the Baltimore Sun and other newspapers. --doncram 18:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1924 isn't old at all, even by North American standards. My parish has been open since 1838, it's the oldest active Catholic parish between Baltimore and Pittsburgh, it served as a hospital for soldiers of both sides in the Civil War, and Babe Ruth was married there. It still doesn't have a Wikipedia article, and it's certainly not listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. Display name 99 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I see the Baltimore Sun reports that the Babe was married at St. Paul Catholic Church (Ellicott City, Maryland) (currently a redlink). That or alternate name St. Paul Roman Catholic Church (Ellicott City, Maryland) would be a fine topic for Wikipedia; it looks to me like there are sources enough about it; History page at the church is one source. NRHP listing is not required for a historic church to be Wikipedia-notable but NRHP-listing pretty much ensures it. Lots of historic churches choose not to be NRHP-listed, not seeing much advantage to it for themselves because they won't benefit from tax credits on historically compatible renovations, which is fine. --doncram 19:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that creating the page wouldn't be a bad idea. It does have a rich history that dates back further than most other still-active parishes in North America. I suggested it simply as a point of comparison.
When explaining why the article on Our Lady of Pompei[I] Church should be kept, you noted that "it seems to have been important in the ethnic history of Baltimore." However, you just deleted most of the information in the article about the history of its Hispanic ministry. Now all we have left is information in the lead stating that the church offers Masses in English and Spanish and the statement that it has served Italian immigrants, without getting into specifics. 674 alumni is not a lot. My grade school, which is still active and also doesn't have a Wikipedia article, has more than that. The rest of the information is just ordinary parish stuff still told from a first-person perspective, which in my opinion fails to distinguish Our Lady of Pompei, as it should be spelled, from the 144 out of the other 152 parishes in the Archdiocese of Baltimore that don't have Wikipedia articles. In truth, it's probably less notable than some of the others, like mine, which, for now at least, aren't covered. Display name 99 (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is not need for an article about each of the separate parishes. These are listed at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore#Parishes, where i have just edited to make a wikilink (currently red) for St. Paul in Ellicott City. There are 5 or 6 bluelinks and the rest are not wikilinked. There's a column for date of founding with just one entry. Maybe adding a description or notes column and developing out some information would be helpful, and would head off creation of separate articles for some and would facilitate creation of articles for the more obviously notable ones. Display name 99, could you possibly be interested in helping develop there a bit? If you are then I could make some effort too.
It remains that we have an article about this one, the Our Lady of Pompei, which I feel is notable for at least the reason that it is now an article about both the parish church and its school, and the school is definitely notable by wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The "674 alumni" is just what pops up in some classmates.com website or something, and is perhaps the number of alumni supposedly signed up there, and is not the actual total number of alumni. --doncram 22:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, I think we can agree to disagree on this article for now. Anybody else who comes by can make their own decision based on what we've both said. If the decision is to keep it, the next step will be to have it moved to "Our Lady of Pompei." As for helping with the other parishes, I have some stuff going on right now-both on and off Wikipedia. I can create the St. Paul's page-you can check for neutrality considering I am a member of the parish-and can help fill in some of the founding dates, maybe getting to other information later on. That is a good idea. Display name 99 (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've moved the title of the page to reflect the proper naming of the church. Natg 19 (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 03:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 03:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The article does not currently establish notability. If it is as notable as suggested, the article needs to be amended to reflect that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 20:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No new !votes sine last relistings.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:53, 4 July 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.