Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Sebastian's Church, Chittattukara

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. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Sebastian's Church, Chittattukara[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)

Fails WP:NBUILD/WP:NORG. I found a few directory entries and some namedrops in the Kerala Gazette but nothing that appears to be WP:SIGCOV. The claims about its ancient lineage are unsourced and I could not verify them. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NCHURCH, churches are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this church doesn't pass Spiderone 20:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having existed since 1770, it's highly unlikely that a fairly large church would have went unnoticed in the media. Sources are quite likely to exist in print media and in the native language. The Thrissur city police website notes "... and Chittattukara St. Sebstian's Church Thirunal are the most important festivals conducted by Christian community within Pavaratty ..." which indicates potential notability. The church is mentioned in this book but I can't see full extract. – SD0001 (talk) (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perSD0001 if it has existed since 1770 feel WP:NEXIST is relevant.Further there could be coverage in the local Malayalam language. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I certainly sympathize with the views noted above, I would note that—as far as I can see—no one has pointed to a reliable source indicating that that this church was founded in 1770, as the article currently claims. Fwiw, the church's website [1] does not appear to mention this date. I find arguments based on WP:NEXIST less persuasive if we do not have clear evidence of the church's age and prominence. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Fwiw, I just found [2], which is a primary source from the archdiocese in which the church is located. It does give a founding date of 1770, which I find reasonably persuasive. I'd love to find some sort of independent confirmation of this, however. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1770 is the date for establishing the parish. The church itself is a few decades younger than this (but still more than 200 years old). Oleryhlolsson (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AleatoryPonderings's concern on lack of sources is valid. However, I found some mentions of this church in this book titled "Father Nidhiry, 1842-1904: A History of His Times", the details cannot be accessed to know whether the church really belongs to that period. If the church is really that old, it should be in a government list of historic heritage sites like the Indian equivalent of National Register for Historic Places. That could make it pass WP:NCHURCH or WP:NBUILD, marginally at least. Nomian (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A church building originating from 1770 is definitely noteworthy. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NCHURCH, churches are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this church doesn't pass - it speculation to say that the ancestors were baptised by St Thomas Apostle. Listing mass times and chapels under the auspice of this church does not make this notable. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The contents of the article at present are irrelevant to notability. Churches are not inherently notable, ok, but how can you claim that it does not meet GNG without having access to sources like this (also linked above) -- from which quite frankly it looks as if the subject is covered significantly, although GBooks is displaying only a snippet. – SD0001 (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The site cited suggests the current building does not in fact date to 1770, though the Catholic parish would. Regardless, WP:ITSOLD is not a valid argument and there is not automatic notability for age. Not shown to have significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 18:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a building is proved to be that old, it's a place of historic significance, similar to the sites listed at National Register for Historic Places. I think we should wait until a google search in the local language is performed. Nomian (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, the present church isn't the one who have been used as parish church since the formation of the parish in 1770. The present church is actually the third church of the parish, and is a few decade younger than the parish itself, probably built shortly after the year 1800, but the exact year/date dosen't seem to be remembered any more (I've updated an improved the article on various points). I agree, that it would be to rash to conclude lack of sources when a search in the local language haven't been done. For what I can see, there are lot of printed material in the local language, but if any of this deals whit the history of the church, I can't tell - but what is evident is 1) The church is mentioned in "Father Nidhiry, 1842-1904: A History of His Times" and 2) The church has significant coverage (found on the internet) in various languages 3) We haven't fully established to what extent the church is mentioned in older printed material & 4) The "Kambidi Thirunnal" seem to be a well known feast also attracting visitors from beyond the borders of the parish - "famed by it's fireworks". All in all I can't recommend a deletion of the article. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Several participants in this discussion have noted that there does not appear to have been a search in non-English texts. I posted this note at WP:INDIA to ask if anyone was able to do that (I can't). Note to closer and others: I assume that this is not inappropriate canvassing—if anything, it would make deletion less likely—but I am open to a reprimand if so. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2020 (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.