Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Francis Xavier Parish, Mackay

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. also largely WP:G11 slakr^\ talk / 00:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St Francis Xavier Parish, Mackay[edit]

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

whilst it looks an impressive article, it has been completely unreferenced for 7.5 years. I suspect it is full of original research and uncited cruft. I searched Australian search engine trove and gbooks and the only coverage is 1 line mentions which confirms church existence. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete A fine example of the sort of parish history that goes on the parish website, but it confirms that this is an ordinary parish of no special note. Mangoe (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but prune The effusive prose could be greatly trimmed leaving a spare but serviceable core. As it has a rare example of the noted stained glass artist, Harry Clarke, that alone is worthy of keeping it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why can't this just be mentioned in Harry Clarke's article? LibStar (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no guideline against cruft. Unscintillating (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the claim of 1000 parishioners comes a presumption that the affairs of the parish tend to attract the attention of media. However, without a single source in the article, our readers can't WP:verify that the parish even exists. The remedy to this means a complete or major rewrite of the article. Unscintillating (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very selective merge and redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockhampton, of which this parish is part. The article can be restored if sources turn up. There certainly aren't many sources, with no mention here, for example. -- 101.119.14.237 (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 101.119.14.237 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. Pure local history. We do not generally consider parishes to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or heavily prune. Most of the content lacks WP:RS and is probably NN anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per IP above - that is the standard practice with subordinate entities which don't meet notability. Parishes in Australia tend to contain only one church and there can be dozens of them in a city or rural region. Orderinchaos 16:58, 28 February 2014 (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.