Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish (Middletown, Connecticut) (2nd nomination)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish (Middletown, Connecticut)[edit]

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

No notability established or asserted. No inline citations; no independent source attesting to notability by wp:GNG. Article was prodded before. Article was included in multi-article AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut) which was closed without deletion of any, but with no judgement on individual article's merits. (Note: article was since moved from St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish, Middletown to current "St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish (Middletown, Connecticut)" name.) do ncr am 06:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is an ongoing, new AFD on one article that was specifically discussed in a larger AFD. Editor WlaKom has once removed the new AFD tag, which is not acceptable by Wikipedia guidelines, and I restored it. --do ncr am 13:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Parishes and churches notability. --WlaKom (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of criteria to establish notability of parishes.

There is not more an ongoing discussion in a larger AFD" - reference to above "a larger AFD". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut). This AfG is example of WP:POV.--WlaKom (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is correct that English Wikipedia does not have a special notability guideline specific to Roman Catholic parishes, but we do have general notability guidelines and a special guideline for organizations that are applied to many page. These guidelines can be applied here. --Orlady (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in New England, Roman Catholic Diocese of Norwich), and Middletown, Connecticut, and redirect to one of these. I can't find much of anything to suggest that this church is individually notable. Based on the reference list in the article and the results of Google searching, I've concluded that whatever notability is possessed by this church/parish is largely historical and in connection with Polish immigration in the late 19th and early 20th century. The Polish-American parishes article is currently a list, but its text components could (and should) be expanded to include more information on the context and history of the establishment of these churches/parishes. This page about the history of Middletown (this is the one relevant page from a larger website that is listed on the articles reference list) indicates that the establishment of this church was a significant event in connection with the growth of Middletown's Polish population. There probably is a similar story to be told about Polish churches throughout the Diocese of Norwich, and the stub about the diocese could be expanded to include that history. Discussion of this church/parish in those three other articles would be an effective way to present the little information that exists about it -- and more valuable to the encyclopedia than attempting to make a stand-alone article about a topic that is not independently notable. --Orlady (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Added: There is a book by Romuald K. Byczkiewicz entitled The Poles of Middletown, that apparently focuses on the history of this church in the context of Polish immigration (see this GNews hit). If someone obtains that book, it may turn this church into a notable topic, in which case this article could be expanded. However, it appears that the book was published by the church [1], so it's not exactly an independent source. --Orlady (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Doncram. Do you really understand what does the Parish mean? See again Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Parishes and churches notability. So far you didn't provide any substantive arguments. This article has sources, is about historical organization (100 year old parish in U.S. is very historical) and the article doesn't have to be long. Tell me. What do you want to achieve? The discussion about the AFD related to parish/church has been closed until we find criteria. How long do you want to continue this unproductive discussion? --WlaKom (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that in Catholicism a parish refers to the people and geographical area, while a church refers more specifically to a building. In other religions church may refer to both. Usually there would be no need to have two articles. Here and in many other cases, there is no need for an article about either. For an article, there needs to be substantial coverage in reliable sources that establishes notability, not achieved here.

About the other discussion, i have now commented over there. I predict that discussion will not create a new standard for notability of churches and/or parishes. What governs now in this AFD is the current standards, which is the existing wp:GNG, and perhaps specifically Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The latter reads: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Here, there is no need for an article established. I agree with Orlady that the information could be merged and this article replaced by a redirect. --do ncr am 02:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I have added four inline citations to the article which should be enough to establish notability. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that your additions were of information about the Knights of Columbus group affiliated with the church, the church's relationship to the local unit of the Polish Lancers, and the fact that the church was the site of a memorial mass related to the nearby industrial explosion. In my book, all of that is good information, but it does not create a claim for notability. Many Catholic parishes/churches have KofC units and holding a mass for the victims of an industrial explosion is merely what one would expect a nearby church to do. I don't know anything about the Polish Lancers, which don't have an article, but a lack of other information about the organization doesn't exactly confer notability on this church. Nice work, but it doesn't change my assessment. --Orlady (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but please consider: The Polish Lancers don't have an article because they merged with the Polish Falcons as stated in the citation. The fact that many churches have a KoC chapter really doesn't change that it is a third party, does it? Also, there are at least 3 print sources (not cited in the article). Likewise, two sources are from the Hartford Courant, which is a newspaper of record and so passes the requirements (for 2 sources) for notability. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder again and again. "the Knights of Columbus group affiliated with the church" - wrong. affiliated with the parish. Orlady, how many times I have to remind you about it. This discussion is about Roman Catholic Parish in Middletown, CT. They could have a meeting in the church but the group includes parishioners not bells or windows. Look like you try to discuss about the issue you don't have a clue what are you taking about. If I don't know too much about the football, I never write the word on the football forum. Sorry for this comment.--WlaKom (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WlaKom, no one except for you is making this distinction between the brick-and-mortar building and the parish. If the article was/is to be exclusively about brick-and-mortar, I would call for it to be deleted too, along with most structures because they don't mean anything without the people. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - It has all required information to establish notability.--WlaKom (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been modified to now include several inline citations addressing one complaint in my deletion nomination statement, but I believe the article still does not at all meet wp:GNG, which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." So far, no significant coverage of this as a topic in any source has been provided. Documentation that the building is the location of meetings of a Knights of Columbus club, and other mentions, are not about the church building or parish in a general way. We do not deem every meetingplace of a club to be notable. Several passing references to the church do not add up to it being covered in reliable sources. I think that mention of the parish having been founded in 1902 or whenever could be included in the Middletown, Connecticut article and that other info could be merged to a diocese article. --do ncr am 22:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above: There is nothing unusual about a parish sponsoring a KofC council, nor about a church being the meeting place for a local council. According to the KofC website: "Local councils are the basic unit of the Knights. Most are based in parishes, though some have their own council hall within a community." Accordingly, being the site of a KofC council is about as notable as hosting a Cub Scout pack -- that is, it is neither notable nor encyclopedic. --Orlady (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree The citations provided are all of record and meet the minimum requirements. If you really want information about the parish in general, I suggest stoppping in and attending a service. You know full well that what you're asking for is impossible, akin to asking for a colonial site's original blueprints. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That I "know full well" what i am asking for is impossible? If there is no significant coverage of this church, then it doesn't get a Wikipedia article, that is the policy. There easily could be information about a church building, say an entry in an architectural guidebook, or a historic site nomination form for one listed on a historic register. There could be info about a parish that is important in some way. About asking for a colonial-era historic site's blueprints, I don't see the connection, except i guess the point is those may not be available. For notability, there is no specific requirement of having one particular document as a source; there has to be one or more reliable sources that attest to the importance of the topic. Here, in this article, there is no assertion of importance at all. --do ncr am 01:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder. You still confused, maybe you're gettin too emotional. This article is about the Parish, not the church. So all your comments are not related to the subject and should be ignored.--WlaKom (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder. You are still the only one making such a differentiation, WlaKom. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. The Roman Catholic Church Canon Law. This is the law which obliges us. --WlaKom (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite it then, so we can all be enlightened. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CODE OF CANON LAW. --WlaKom (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...great page. What are you specifically referring to? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram: Yes, there is... there need to be two sources, this article has four online and three written (though unattibuted) sources. When I say impossible, you know full well that the Hartford Courant is a newspaper of record and that those citations are valid. You also know that nothing in the world is written up in newspapers unless something happens there -- you can't just pick up the NYT and find an article on the Canton Bridge Company, for example. Ergo, you're placing a higher bar on this article than on others. And that's what I disgree with. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Apparently the school is a local historic landmark, the citation for which was reprinted by the State of Connecticut. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't happen to understand your mention here and elsewhere of 2 citations. Are you referring to some policy statement or guideline section? I am supposing you are referring to having coverage in multiple (being more than one) reliable sources, but don't recall seeing "2 citations" discussed as rule of thumb or otherwise in other AFDs. I don't happen to think including more than one source is really required, if one source is reliable and substantial and clearly establishes notability (in the normal English language meaning of the word). The Hartford Courant is a fine paper, but calendar-type mention of a meeting being located at the church does not constitute substantial coverage of the church, and counts for nothing in terms of establishing notability. And usually should not be part of an encyclopedic article, anyhow.

If you have found local historic landmark information, that could indeed help. --do ncr am 20:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the school is listed in the 1979 Greater Middletown survey/list of buildings, which was preliminary to many historic districts being created and to various buildings being individually listed on the NRHP. But it also seems this building was not itself designated a local historic site. And its address puts it just outside the boundary of the South Green Historic District, suggesting that historic preservationists deemed the building not historic or notable enough to draw the boundary differently. A list of properties in that district is here (with further note that to check on a property not listed, you can call a given phone number). If you can find that this was actually a contributing building in a NRHP-listed historic district, that would help a lot, would probably suffice for notability for me. But i think it was just listed along with other buildings in a big inventory of all buildings possibly worth preservation (and they decided in effect this one is not worth preservation). I'll look at the NRHP doc for that nearby district, though. --do ncr am 21:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There appears to be enough coverage of this church to warrant inclusion. [2][3][4]--Oakshade (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2011 (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.