Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mary's Cathedral, Pazhanji

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. The merits of a possible merge can be firther discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Cathedral, Pazhanji[edit]

[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)

WP:NOTTRAVEL. Includes POV like beautiful , true spiritual experience. We dont need its postal code or how to get there. Sources are Google searches, the website of the church and Facebook. » Shadowowl | talk 12:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to let us focus on the notability issue I've made a number of changes to the page to remove some of the NPOV content, duplicative language, interesting ref formatting, connectivity paragraph etc etc. The primary website has extremely similar content to what the article had before I reworked it. I don't know which was drawing from which. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete just not finding anything that's about the cathedral anywhere other than its own website. Mangoe (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with a merge to Pazhanji. Mangoe (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge - there are a couple of news/book sources with one line references but that is the sum limit as far as I can tell, thus no notability Nosebagbear (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay with a merge, however, per the below discussions

Keep. As a co-cathedral it's pretty much de facto notable as a major church. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was my initial impulse, but the lack of any independent sourcing rather overrode that. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As a Cathedral, it should be notable. Furthermore, being "several hundred years old", it predates most western missionary endeavour in India. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we were accepting WP:GEOFEAT rather than WP:NCHURCH, which is not guaranteed, there still would not be sufficient sourcing (as provided at this point) to meet the very low barriers. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course we are, since WP:NCHURCH quite clearly refers to the organisation (i.e. parish etc; note it is part of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)) and this article quite clearly refers to the building. For a building as important as a cathedral for a major denomination, existence is pretty much all we need for a presumption of notability. That, to me, is common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's heading more in the direction of a line in the diocese's article saying where the cathedral is and what it is called. Mangoe (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that about any stub. There's always going to be more you can say about a cathedral. It just hasn't been said yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I could say anything about anything but it would usually be nonsense. In this case the problem is that there's all evidence at the moment that such a stub isn't going to be expanded for now because there isn't anything to expand it with. Usually cathedrals get articles because they are historic buildings in their own rights, and that's plainly not the case here. Mangoe (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Their Claim on the age is a lie. see my comment below. --DBig Xray 12:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on its age and as the see of a diocese, probably notable. Bearian (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)\[reply]

Simply being the seat of a diocese is not separately notable. Mangoe (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but that is not my entire argument. For years I have consistently argued for or against the notability of churches, based on a number of factors, and for that reason I think this house of worship is notable. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearian, I reviewed your check list and The church fails the notability test even by your "own" standards, The age is disputed below and not precisely mentioned even by the church. --DBig Xray 20:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, based on confusion about its age, and the need to source that fact, I'm withdrawing my !vote. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing your !vote. --DBig Xray 09:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a cathedral of this age should have old book reliable sources coverage, well before google, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is for deletion, not keeping. I found no significant book sources. Mangoe (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As an old cathedral passes WP:NCHURCH. No notability issue, but content sourcing one. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NCHURCH requires that at least WP:GNG is satisfied, it doesn't give automatic notability for meeting any specific requirement. GNG is not, from the sources given thus far, satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think it is old ? see my reply below.

Merge: ~~Delete~~ the Keep votes in my opinion are based on the first impression of the title and a lack of research on this church and its coverage. the Cathedral fails WP:GNG spectacularly. Was only in news for wrong reasons [1] of animal abuse. The article itself was WP:PROMO and I removed the Facebook link from infobox and other spams. Per their own official website it is "few" hundred years old without any date, (How convenient). I would say they are trying to bluff, and the ambiguity regarding the age is deliberate as its suits the church. None of their claims about age should be taken seriously. It is a common tactic in this area, to attract more followers by fabricating the age of the church. --DBig Xray 09:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever its age, the fact remains that it is a cathedral of a major denomination. Common sense would suggest that we keep such edifices. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi User:Necrothesp The declaration as a second church of diocese happened in 2015, which is fairly recent., Can you please point me to such a Policy on Churches. AFAIK GNG is important to be satisfied. If even the local media finds it not worth discussing, then why must Wikipedia, choose otherwise. --DBig Xray 10:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - We don't always need a policy, you know. As someone who's been an editor here for many years, it always amazes me how many editors seem uncomfortable with doing anything unless a policy tells them to. It's rather sad, to tell you the truth. I reiterate, common sense would suggest that a co-cathedral is notable! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting Relist : the Consensus above is tilted on delete. The keep supporters have failed to give any verifiable justification. --DBig Xray 09:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the arguments of a particular side, though enough in number, fails WP:AADD spectacularly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 13:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GEOLAND. Cathedrals are legally recognised under ecclesiastical law (canon law). [For the avoidance of doubt, we should for this purpose take into account the laws made by a non-established church or government-in-exile, etc, provided it is sufficiently powerful to merit our attention.] There seems to be coverage [2], but I am having difficulty reading it as my browser doesn't support Malayalam. I think it is worth bearing in mind that the vast majority of books are not searchable online, and those that are mainly come from large university libraries in the USA, with all the systematic bias that implies. WP:NRVE says that if offline sources are likely to exist, we do not delete. In the case of a historic church or cathedral in India, I think we can infer that it is likely. Finally, I must point out that WP:IAR is still policy, and if we are satisfied this building is a Syrian Orthodox cathedral, then not having an article on it would prevent us from improving and maintaining the project, which is forbidden by said policy. And AADD is an essay, so what it says carries very little weight. James500 (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I did find a book in English: [3]. There are also images in Google Images (the building looks large and impressive), and the building is a verifiable source for its own design. James500 (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it satisfies GEOLAND - it's a physical thing, not a populated location. You might have meant WP:GEOFEAT, but I haven't seen criterion 1 satisfied in its several aspects, and criterion 2 definitely hasn't been met. (Criterion 3 not applicable). To use IAR as a justification requires strong consent that nothing else should apply, and bluntly, the lack of anything about it that can be trusted makes it hard for me to know whether it's something worth bypassing the rules to improve the encyclopedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant GEOLAND. This is a place or location in the sense that we are talking about an area of land whose co-ordinates are not going to change. This is not like a vehicle or vessel that can move. [The area for a church will normally extend to the boundary wall of the graveyard, as they normally have one.] To try to make a distinction between bricks and the soil beneath and around them seems to me to be unjustifiable. This place is populated in the sense that there are lots of people there. I appreciate that GEOLAND is primarily aimed at villages, but the ordinary meaning of the expression populated place is much broader than that, and I have to infer that the choice of words is deliberate. James500 (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A distinction between bricks and the land it is on is made in almost all walks of life and within Wikipedia. That isn't the definition of populated at all, otherwise any building which had a reasonable number of people would qualify, such as a medium-size office block. WP:GEOFEAT wouldn't be necessary if such an inclusive viewpoint of GEOLAND was implemented. Its presence distinctly indicates that being a fixed location with people usually within is not a notability grounds. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. GEOFEAT appears to be for locations that are not legally recognised. A medium-size office block is not legally recognised and would not qualify for GEOLAND for that reason. A cathedral, on the other hand, is legally recognised under canon law. This line of reasoning would not make GEOFEAT redundant. James500 (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:GEOLAND or WP:GEOFEAT does not apply here, one can argue to apply WP:NBUILD here but again NBUILD require significant coverage hence it fails NBUILD as well. --DBig Xray 11:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, GEOLAND does apply. James500 (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James500: @DBigXray:It doesn't. Lets take a look at GEOLAND criteria :

Criteria	Applies to this article
Populated, legally recognized places	No, it is not a place, it is a building.
Populated places without legal recognition	Again, not a place, but a building
Disputed regions	This is not a disputed region.
Named natural features	Named NATURAL features.

It does not apply. GEOFEAT#2 is the only criteria that can apply to this. » Shadowowl | talk 16:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ShadowOwl, Yes, I agree with you here. Please note that WP:GEOFEAT (short for Geographics features) and WP:NBUILD (short for Notability of Building) point to the same policy subsection i.e. Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#Buildings_and_objects. Which is why I said one can argue about NBUILD but as it can be argued to have social significance, provided it has "significant coverage" as of now it is not satisfied. hence even WP:NBUILD (i.e. Notability of Building) is not met. --DBig Xray 17:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pazhanji - the village in which the church is located. My thoughts: WP:GEOLAND and WP:GEOFEAT don't apply. This is a building, not a village or mountain or lake. I find it difficult to find any unaffiliated reliable sources containing coverage of this church. Even the diocese has no article Kunnamkulam diocese. However, the self-published material can support the inclusion of the information/text in another article, which I merit should should be the village in which this church is located. We have many articles on populated places that have sections on a particular (but not notable in the WP sense) building. Why not this as well? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Carlossuarez46 good point, I have now copied the usable content of the church from its article to the Pazhanji village article. Also did a clean up of spam links of the church from the village article.--DBig Xray 20:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not oppose a merger per Carlossuarez46, whose wisdom and experience I trust. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the new merge proposal that should satisfy both keep and delete !voters
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on my comment above I have changed my !vote to merge with Pazhanji.--DBig Xray 16:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article about the city, in the absence of substantive verifiable information about the cathedral. Vanamonde (talk) 10:46, 19 August 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.