Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Frances Xavier Cabrini's Church (New York City)

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 merge to List of churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York. I am closing this as a merge. There were two possibilities given as a merge target, and I have chosen List of churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York - if anyone disagrees, the precise target can be discussed on the article's talk page PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Frances Xavier Cabrini's Church (New York City)[edit]

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

Fails notability requirements as a company or organization Yaksar (let's chat) 06:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Danger 14:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article has no references and no assertion of notability, so it looks very non-notable. However, if this church is related to the life of Francesca S. Cabrini, the St. Frances Cabrini Shrine, etc., and not merely named after her, it might be notable. (It does not appear to be directly related to Mother Cabrini, but I can't tell for sure.) --Orlady (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be merely named after her, there's been no connection found.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A third paragraph has been added concerning St. Frances, her remains, and a different shrine has been added. I don't see any connection between this paragraph and the subject of this page, but I'm looking into it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - it appears that this has been improved since the nomination, and there are seven footnotes. Not that these are the most reliable sources, or that they directly address the main topic of the article, but it looks close enough for me. I'm particularly interested in Saint's head, but that's getting a bit off-topic. The article does need to assert notability however. I think the needed improvements can be made. Smallbones (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I've had to delete most of the added information. One paragraph was just about the neighboring church, and the other was about the shrine and school, which are dedicated to the Saint but have no relation to this church.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We had more than 1 edit conflict at various pages - I do think it is very bad form to delete material from an article at the same time as you are pushing for an AfD. I do hope you put the material back in. The only reason that you should edit an article is to improve it. Here you are raising the possibility that you are deleting material in order to delete the article. Very bad form. Smallbones (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the info because it was misleading; at first glance I thought it was relevant and was grounds for the notability of this church. However, I can see no reason why information on a neighboring church's services should be added, nor can I see any reason to include information on a school and shrine that, while named for the same saint, are completely unrelated to this church. I'd have made the same edit to any article, regardless of whether I was involved in an AfD or not.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section deleted (Good Shepherd Church) that you claimed was "misleading" involved the alternative venue where parish services take place. It is now an ecumenical venue and may be the primary location for the parish. The other section on Mother Cabrini, which you have shortened and deleted, is regarding the transferring of her relics to northern Manhattan from New York State. Since her shrine was built in the 1960s, this is relevant for the dedication decision of the parish on Roosevelt Island. As a parish church on Roosevelt Island, the church appears notable. There are likely other connections that remain to be found.---James R (talk)

I'm quite confused. How does the fact that her relics were moved from Western New York to Manhattan relate to this article? This church is in neither of those locations. But I may have actually been a bit too hasty in removing the Good Shepherd Church; there's at least some connection, so I apologize and will add it back in. However, it doesn't really do anything to increase or indicate notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just an ordinary church with no special claim to notability. It may be named for a famous person, but that doesn't mean it itself is notable. Ravendrop (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently referenced and notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge/redirect if an appropriate destination article exits) - The article has been improved by the addition of reference citations and new info. However, it is now clear to me that there is no connection to Mother Cabrini that would impart notability, and the information and sources that have been added do not indicate that this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill local church. The sources cited in the article do not establish notability per WP:GNG, as they are either nonindependent (i.e., http://www.parishesonline.com/ and the church's own website), not about this church (i.e., [1]) or trivial/unreliable (i.e., the blog http://catholicmanhattan.blogspot.com ). None of the factoids in the article are indicative of special notability. Specifically: being established in 1973 is not a claim to notability; being named for a saint does not make a local Catholic church/parish notable; being located near an historic Episcopal church and sometimes conducting mass there is not a basis for notability; and being located on Roosevelt Island and being part of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York are not notable attributes. --Orlady (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge (with Good Shepherd) The article needs improvement and suffers from being on Roosevelt Island in the County of New York, but not featured in any comprehensive publications that have made it online regarding Manhattan Churches, or any other city architectural reference. There are published sources but their absence online makes them difficult to track down immediately.---James R (talk)

When I was looking up articles and images on the church, I could not find the structure separate from Good Shepherd Church. It turns out Good Shepherd ecumenically doubles as St. Francis Cabrini Roman Catholic Church. Either this article merges with that article, or this article is solely about the parish.---James R (talk)

I don't think this is the case. Their respective websites list different addresses, nothe same ones. It's entirely possible that there just aren't any easy to find images of the building on the internet. In regards to your first point; we can't just assume that there are reliable sources that establish notability of this church without actually knowing they exist.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge into List of churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, including all the significant information from this article, and expand the information about every one of the churches in that list article into about a paragraph for each, making a good combination article (it may, of course, need subdivision because of size). Neither extreme is encyclopedic: not a full article, but also not a mere mere listing,. We need to be more flexible about how we deal with this sort of topic. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 16 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, Beeblebrox (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DGG. Verifiable content ought not to be lost. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 18 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.