Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lapa 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 Keep (non-admin closure) EJF (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Lapa Church

Lapa Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A good faith effort to find references has failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources in order to comply with notability. Was deleted by prod, original editor recreated article after discussion on reference requirements User talk:Jeepday/Archive 2#vandalism by admins?!, no reference have been provide or appear to be likely. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Jeepday (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Certainly doesn't fail WP:V. A church this old surely has many sources and documentation on it. Most likely they're in Portuguese and before the internet era. Remember, a topic fails WP:V only if it is impossible to verify, not if it isn't currently unverified. A church that's over 230 years old that also served as a lighthouse is very unique, notable and historic. The Portuguese Wikipedia article has a lot more information on the history of this church. Here's a more recent article about this church from an independent reliable source. --Oakshade (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - certainly it's verifiable, but it still fails to be notable. The second reference provided above pertains to the 1892 disaster, and only tangentially to the parish church. This appears to be a non-notable local church. -- BPMullins | Talk 19:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I know historic buildings are not rare in Portugal, but they are each individually probably notable; there are sure to be print sources. Care should be taken in deleting articles about possibly important local subjects deemed notable by the relevant language;s WP--not that we have to follow, or that they might not exaggerate the importance, but that we should be cautious, since notability is world-wide, and they may be in a better position to judge. DGG (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - 'cause I think a Church with a built in Lighthouse is notable. I also think that the picture serves a WP:V on the fact that it has a lighthouse. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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.