Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal R. C. 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. The only policy backed arguments are for this article's deletion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal R. C. Church[edit]

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

This seems like just an average church, with nothing to satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not an average church. It has historical significance to history of Maspeth and surrounding areas. - Maspetheer (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep – While it is only 3 days since this article is created, I do see that for content, it is a very minimal Stub status. I did add a History section, and on the talk page mention also the need for an Architecture section to further increase content. — JoeHebda • (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. There's some trivial mentions scattered throughout New York media ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), but this article is one of the few that seem to be about it. And I can't even read it. Maybe someone else can find better sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Additions have been made to the article. - Maspetheer (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough for its size if nothing else. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at WP:ORG but I cannot find the section "notable enough for its size." Is that in some other notability guideline?Edison (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's called an opinion! Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. In addition, this is a building, not an organisation, so WP:GEOFEAT applies, not WP:ORG. I'm puzzled as to why you should think the latter is at all relevant to a building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- It looks like a typical NN local church to me. I see no evidence in the article on size. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A scholarly source (Fordham University) has been added. - Maspetheer (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is likely questionably notable as I first thought. Uncertain as it may be locally notable enough to keep but there may still need to be improvements so considering drafting and userfying is also an option. Notifying DGG for New York analysis. SwisterTwister talk 00:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No point in userifying because there is very unlikely to be enough for an article. I used to try very hard with similar churches, until I learned it can not be done unless its either a historic building or the cathedral of the diocese. . DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: moving to no consensus, but lest us try one more week--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not every church can have an article. Logic225 (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2016 (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.