Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church, Thenkaraikottai (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 no consensus‎. Ordinarily, I'd relist or close this as a Soft Delete but neither of those options are available at this point. Since there is support for a Merge/Redirect, I'm closing this as No Consensus. Editors are encouraged to take whatever editing action they think is appropriate as individual editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church, Thenkaraikottai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Seems to be same problems identified in previous Afd. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep^Talk 11:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tangrakottai, after retitling that article to the village name of Thenkaraikottai. This church is in the adjoining settlement of Fathima Nagar. The census village is Thenkaraikottai (spelled without the 'h' in the 2011 Tamil Nadu census handbook)[1] Tangrakottai article covers both the fort and the Kalyana Ramaswamy temple, both accessed from Thenkaraikottai. The current redirect from Thenkaraikottai to Tangrakottai looks to be the wrong way round — Tangrakottai has few Google hits, most of which appear to be Wikipedia mirrors, so that article may be wrongly titled. Rupples (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are a few sources in the stub. It fails my own standards at User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_historic_churches. Plus: the building is more than 100 years old (pre-1921). Minus: everything else. It's not on any register of Historic Places. It as neither designed by a notable architect, nor is notable for its architecture. It has not been notorious nor notable in any way. I would not oppose a redirect one way or the other. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2024 (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.