Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zu den heiligen Engeln

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. Ok, Fram is probably right by policy but the heartfelt consensus of editors mourning the passing of an exceptional colleague shouldn't be discounted by making this nc. No objection to an earlier than usual relist if editors feel so minded. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zu den heiligen Engeln

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Prod removed. Prod reason was "I can find no evidence that this is a notable church. All info I can find online seem to point to a run-of-the-mill church, which gets routine coverage, but nothing else. Not noted for its architecture as far as I can tell, not a notable history, just a church."

The sources added since then do nothing to change this. this book (a very specialized PhD disserttation) mentions this church in brackets when discussing another church, but that's it. This is the kind of local routine coverage about a change of priest, not about the church. The other sources are not independent or don't give indepth information about the church. The conclusion remains that this is a run-of-the-mill church which hasn't received the necessary independent attention necessary to have an article here. Fram (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked that a friend here died, and have no words yet. We have articles about toilet paper orientation, men's parking space and obscure card games, but a church which is built as a symbol of the tent of God with men is not welcome? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems semi-notable for it's ecological efforts. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Has this been commented upon in independent sources? What we have in the article now is this, which is the website of the diocese this church belongs to. Our article states "it was the second parish to be certified", but the source article makes it clear that this means "it was the second parish in this diocese to be certified", which is not really much of a claim to notability, and probably the reason no major independent sources have paid any attention to this. Fram (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly seem to be lots of news sources but I can't speak enough German beyond "Entschuldigung, aber mein Wellensittich ist kaput" to know if any of them are helpful to rescue the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- (You'll need to include Kirchrode in the search, because Peine has one with the same name, and others, actually.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Gerda that it is shocking that a tent of God with men is not welcome in en.wikipedia.--NezLe (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NezLe: I think Wikipedia expects all tents to demonstrate their notability to ensure inclusion? ——SerialNumber54129 14:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me. I am shocked that a friend died. I am just a bit irritated about Wikipedia letting the socalled reliable sources decide what should be kept and what not. A little fancy thing in newspapers around the globe: notable. A spiritual place for decades, built by an award-winning architect: not notable. - I am sure there were press reviews when it was built, but they are not online, and I don't have them. We know that €400.000 were spent on the improvements in 2014. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the article on the architect here nor the German one indicate that the architect won any awards. His descendants, who continued and expanded the firm, won awards, but that is hardly relevant for the notability of this church. Fram (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't blame other articles. What I read - and didn't describe correctly, sorry - was this saying that his St. Bonifatius in Kassel has an entry in the Brockhaus Enzyklopädie saying: "Die Kirche wird als markantestes Kasseler Bauwerk der Nachkriegszeit in den Brockhaus aufgenommen." The church was included ... as the most striking (prominent, clear-cut) building in Kassel after World War II. What if I translate that church? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "blame" other articles, I point out (correctly apparently) that your claim was false. The notability of another church by the same architect is hardly relevant for the notability of this church though: he apparently designed 35 churches, that one of them is notable doesn't make the 34 others notable. For this chucrch to be notable, you need to find sources beyond local and routine coverage, things like the source you found for that other church. Fram (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its city and its diocese rely on the official website, that's different. I'm not afraid of millions of articles, because it would take thousands of editors to write them. Sorry for my failing memory that thought award when it was Brockhaus mentioning. - For other churches, I was told that the official website can be used for facts not found elsewhere. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Official website of course can be use, but not to determine notability, which is what we are trying to do here. Fram (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Sunday, the parish will appear on German public television. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-documented parish church of a major religion. Actually I don't see a problem with us having articles on all 12488 Catholic parishes in Germany (they are usually all well documented in news and so on), whether their church is architecturally significant or not. —Kusma (t·c) 12:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason why the normal notability rules wouldn't apply to "parish churches of a major religion"? More than 200,000 Catholic parish churches, nearly 4 million mosques[1], more than 2 million Hindu temples in India alone, ... Fram (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said, the Catholic parishes in Germany tend to be well documented in the news (events receive at least as much coverage as those of schools, but we can argue whether this is "routine coverage"), and their churches (as buildings with some content) receive lots of coverage (you will find articles written about the art in the church and the organ in the church and so on). So there is no reason to believe they won't pass normal notability rules. I don't know what the sourcing situation is with respect to other churches. —Kusma (t·c) 17:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - But these sources mostly are non-existent for this particular church. The sources in the article are either not independent, or very local. Claiming that all German churches have plenty of coverage, in an AfD for a German church where such coverage seems to be lacking, is not really helpful. And many school articles get deleted or redirected if all we have is such routine coverage ("school X has it yearly christmas event this saturday" kind of coverage, or "our local school gets a new gym hall"). You aptly compare this church to a school, but school articles don't get kept automatically at all... Fram (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, sources can often be quite local (and typically the minority confessions have slightly worse coverage than those of the majority). But I would be really surprised if there wasn't a lot more about this church from the 1960s (and not online). Maybe a list of Catholic parishes and their churches in Hannover is better than individual articles. But certainly deleting this article without replacement is not improving Wikipedia. —Kusma (t·c) 11:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as I'm concerned churches (esp. churches with some history to them) are already borderline inherently notable, and I am convinced also by User:Kusma's arguments. This is the kind of thing where it is reasonable to presume there's more sourcing available, and the only thing that stands between the article and sourcing (OK, a few things) is a. the lack of online presence for slightly older things that aren't major things b. the fact that we're not in Hanover where we can see what the local archives have to offer. Note: I just approved this at DYK, pending this discussion of course. Dr Aaij (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I had some luck finding a ref, adding facets like the church a test place for broadcasts of services. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Kuzma et al. --Doncram (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I do think that most/all of such churches are likely notable, but this one perhaps even more so for its interesting architecture, apparent in photo and explained in article as the architect choosing to make it like a tent. This is notably different than the architecture of approximately one bazillion U.S. churches I have seen. --Doncram (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2018 (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.