Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)

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, sort of, but you might want to read my closing statement. Or, go to the last paragraph for a general summary.

I'm going to start simply by summarising what I see as the "history" of this AfD; the pattern it took. Since almost any close in something as big as this is going to attract an element of criticism, I thought it would be helpful to make clear how I see events, allowing people to look at how I came to my conclusion and (if they wish) point out anything they felt I missed, be it on my talkpage or at WP:DRV. The AfD opened with User:Doncram nominating St. Mark Church for deletion, followed by the posting of 7 similar articles for deletion. All were created by User:Lukascb or User:James Russiello, and were churches in the general Conneticut area. This was followed by the nomination of a large number of similar articles, all by the same users. At the time of this statement, the total list is of approximately 72 articles; any error on this number is because I had to count them by hand. Those formal comments (keep, delete, whatnot, rather than pure neutral commentary) in this AfD work out at 7 "keep all, due to state of AfD/notability", 1 "examine individually", 1 "merge some, keep others, depending on individual notability" and 1 "delete all".

Any attempt to determine consensus is confused by the number of proposals, counter-proposals and counter-counter-proposals running across this page. Some proposed keeping certain individual ones, which led to debate on their individual notability. Some proposed changing the scope of the AfD, others proposed keeping the scope but amending the list to categorise things geographically and take into account renames. All-in-all, it's a fairly confusing mess. I appreciate, however, that there is some incredibly useful discussion coming out of said mess, on the notability of churches generally (inherent, or not inherent?) and the notability of churches individually. These are things to be encouraged, particularly the former, since it covers an area with no formal or summarised guidance.

Discussion is good. Discussion is wonderful. Discussion over ways to go on content matters are, after all, of extreme importance to our primary purpose here as a community and as individuals. But discussion has to be appropriately located, discussion has to be appropriately worded, and discussion has to avoid scaring off new or inexperienced editors trying to do a good thing. In this case, we have discussion at the wrong location, in great detail, and in a format I (as a new editor) would find quite intimidating. None of these are good. This is, I think, partially due to the format of the AfD; nominating a vast number of articles for deletion simultaneously. All these articles have in common are their general subject, their general geographical editor, and the people who wrote them. WP:BUNDLE quite appropriately summarises when a bundled, multi-article AfD is appropriate; you will note that the examples list (while obviously non-exhaustive) does not include this type of situation. As a principle, it is generally not a good idea to nominate multiple articles for deletion if some could stand on their own two feet - which, as the discussion below suggests, some quite clearly do - and it is also best to "only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group". For future reference, I would advise following this approach, so as to prevent TL:DR closing rationales (and, for that matter, TL:DR AfDs).

At the end of the day, consensus is fairly clear that, regardless of the merits or lack thereof of individual articles, this nomination was A Bad Idea. As such, I am closing this as a keep, with no obligation to wait before renominating individual articles for deletion. I would advise avoiding a mass-nomination of this sort again. It is appreciated that there is (as said) some very good discussion going on here, in areas where discussion needs to be had, and this closure should not be taken as shutting the door on such a discussion. I urge all parties to hash out notability concerns over the individual articles elsewhere, perhaps on the Catholicism project talkpage or somewhere similar. If they can reach some sort of consensus on the standards expected of churches generally, that would be most appreciated, and make AfDs like this a thing of the past. Ironholds (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut) and many other churches

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

This is one of numerous articles just created on Connecticut (and perhaps other) non-notable churches, not meeting Wikipedia notability standards. do ncr am 03:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because Doncram appears to intend this to be a multi-page AfD nomination, including the following articles, I am reformatting his list as such and am adding templates to the articles:

It has been asserted Holy Name of Jesus Church (Connecticut) should be excluded. See #specific exceptions.

Title has to be renamed to St. James Church (Stratford, Connecticut). --WlaKom (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Orlady (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These and more appear in recent contributions history of User:James Russiello and User:Lukascb. Perhaps some of these could be merely listed within Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport, an article that does not currently mention any of them, instead of creating stub articles on these seemingly non-notable places. --do ncr am 04:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady sees fit to widen the AFD. I don't know how best to raise the notability issue with these editors, who probably have good contributions to make, but IMO started wrong with these. Not sure if that is best way or not, but okay. Other new church articles (most of the contents of Category:Roman Catholic churches in Connecticut, adding to this AFD:

Title has to be renamed to St. Charles Borromeo Church (Bridgeport, Connecticut). --WlaKom (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title has to be renamed to Our Lady of Fatima Church (Bridgeport, Connecticut). --WlaKom (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title has to be renamed to Our Lady of Good Counsel Church (Bridgeport, Connecticut). --WlaKom (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title has to be renamed to St. John Church (Darien, Connecticut). --WlaKom (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title has to be renamed to St. Mary Church (Bridgeport, Connecticut). --WlaKom (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title has to be renamed to St. Rose of Lima Church (Newtown, Connecticut) --WlaKom (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been asserted that the Saint Theresa Church article's specifics do not justify its deletion, see #specific exceptions.

Title has to be renamed to St. Cyril and Methodius Church (Bridgeport, Connecticut). --WlaKom (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title has to be renamed to St. Ambrose Church (Bridgeport, Connecticut). --WlaKom (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title has to be renamed to St. Andrew Church (Bridgeport, Connecticut). --WlaKom (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title has to be renamed to St. Ann Church (Bridgeport, Connecticut). --WlaKom (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been asserted that the St. Augustine Cathedral (Bridgeport) article's specifics do not justify its deletion, see #specific exceptions.

Title has to be renamed to St. Catherine of Sienna Church (Riverside, Connecticut). --WlaKom (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title has to be renamed to St. James Church (Stratford, Connecticut). --WlaKom (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been asserted that the St. Joseph Parish (Ansonia) article's specifics do not justify its deletion, see #specific exceptions.

Title has to be renamed to St. Peter Church (Bridgeport, Connecticut). --WlaKom (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been asserted that the St. Stanislaus Parish (Bristol, Connecticut) article's specifics do not justify its deletion, see #specific exceptions.

It has been asserted that the Our Lady of Perpetual Help Parish, Quaker Hill article's specifics do not justify its deletion, see #specific exceptions.

It has been asserted that the St. Joseph Parish, Rockville article's specifics do not justify its deletion, see #specific exceptions.

which was moved, during this AFD in progress, to:

by editor User:WlaKom.

It has been asserted that the St. Augustine Cathedral (Bridgeport) article's specifics do not justify its deletion, see #specific exceptions.

I briefly reviewed each article in the category, and do not nominate a few, including Basilica of the Immaculate Conception (Waterbury, Connecticut) (more developed, and more significant as a basilica) and St. Mary's Church (Stamford, Connecticut) (NRHP-listed).

The articles do not assert notability and they mostly do not include secondary sources establishing notability. A few include references to offline sources that i can't immediately evaluate, as to whether they are reliable and secondary. All or most include a church or diocese webpage as an external link, which is not adequate to establish notability.

Note, further, that experienced editor User:Polaron has complicated this situation by numerous article moves from names involving (City, State) disambiguation to more general names, such as moving one to Saint Gabriel Church, which should surely be a disambiguation page or a redirect to a combo disambiguation page. Polaron has extended his move warring despite, and in response to, request that he stop this. --do ncr am 15:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I resent my moves being classified as "move warring". This is another assumption of bad faith by Doncram. If it should be a dismabiguation page, that is the responsibility of people creating the second article with the same name. But if only one article exists, there is no reason for it to be pre-disambiguated. At a minimum, the base name should redirect and not be a red link if there is an existing article. --Polaron | Talk 15:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tangent, not germane to the AFD. Please continue on this side issue at User talk:Polaron#random moves of Connecticut church articles. --do ncr am 16:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, so why did you bring it up in the first place? I am only answering what you brought up here. So please tell me why what I did was "move warring" when I only moved articles extacly one time to a red linked name with no history of controvery at all? --Polaron | Talk 16:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a good number more that were started as Parish articles within Category:Roman Catholic parishes of Archdiocese of Hartford and at the main category and in other subcategories of Category:Roman Catholic parishes in Connecticut. Not sure but probably less than have already been tagged and listed above, in Connecticut. I am not going to name and tag them now. Same sources, same issues apply. The creator of articles really needs to comment here about the sources used in these, and suggest some approach to separating notable vs. non-notable ones. All the parishes could possibly be listed within archdiocese articles, and brief info be given there about them, without creating separate articles for them / with deletion of the existing articles after info is copied over.

Omigosh, there are 48 more cookie-cutter parish articles in Category:Roman Catholic parishes in Massachusetts and a few more in each of several other states, within Category:Roman Catholic parishes in the United States. --do ncr am 01:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I know that Holy Name of Jesus Church (Connecticut) had quite a lot of press due to the clergical sexual abuse scandals. I'm not familiar with most of the rest of them, but they all seem to be pretty new articles. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're mostly brand new. Not all churches are notable; most are not. Wikipedia is not a directory. Best to delete all and encourage creator to work slowly, learn what standards are. This discussion needs to explain standards and to consider sources the creator may have available. --do ncr am 16:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose mass deletion. Close and nominate individually on their own merits. Some of these appear to be notable. Unless someone can point to some guideline that says we should not have articles on this class of topics, a mass deletion of an entire category is uncalled for. --Polaron | Talk 15:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at them all. A few may in fact be notable, just not adequately supported, but I believe the great majority are not notable. It's most efficient to discuss all at once, and i was specifically advised to expand the AFD to cover them all (here). These have all been individually tagged so the AFD is valid. Perhaps all could be moved off to a holding area in User space, where you and others could contribute to improving some of them before bringing to mainspace.

I will offer here that i have myself created many stub articles on churches that are NRHP-listed, but for these I provide documentation of NRHP listing (and often a lot more) which is generally accepted as establishing Wikipedia-notability. General notability is not established for all churches automatically. --do ncr am 16:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, can you cite "General notability is not established for all churches automatically"? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would be up to you to cite the converse. Unless you can show that there is a SNG for churches, then the WP:GNG is the one we use. LadyofShalott 16:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've started looking for third-party coverage or other indications of WP:ORG-type notability for these churches. Most of what I've found so far is content that would best fit in the existing article Sexual abuse scandal in Bridgeport diocese. That is, I've found content about sexual abuse of minors by priests assigned to some of these churches. Churches involved include Blessed Sacrament Church (Connecticut) (a church in Bridgeport; you can bet that there are others in the state by this name), St. Anthony of Padua Church, St. James Church in Stratford, St. Ann Church in Bridgeport, Our Lady of Good Counsel Parish in Bridgeport, St. Ambrose Church in Bridgeport, St. Patrick's Church in Bridgeport, St. Leo Parish in Stamford. St. Theresa's Church and St. Catherine of Siena Church in Trumbull, St. Joseph's Church in Shelton, St. Edward the Confessor Church in New Fairfield, St. Peter's Church in Danbury, St. Mary Parish in Bethel, St. Mary's Church in Stamford, St. Maurice's Church in Stamford, and St. Mary's Church in Greenwich. There are other churches in the diocese where abusive priests were assigned at one time, but I haven't yet seen an indication that abuse incidents were reported at every church. In keeping with WP:ONEEVENT, a church should not be deemed notable strictly on the basis of having been the site of sex abuse cases, just as the individual priests don't have articles (and most aren't named in articles).
An unrelated piece of information is that some of the church articles indicate that the buildings were designed by architects who are the subject of articles, including J. Gerald Phelan (who won some awards, and thus appears to be notable by WP:BIO) and Andrew G. Patrick (who does not appear to me to be independently notable), but I see no basis for saying that every church designed by a notable architect is notable. Notability is not inherited. --Orlady (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Add St. Cecilia in Stamford to the list of churches that had abusive priests, per this newspaper story. --Orlady (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Lukascb started the Blessed Sacrament Church article with (Bridgeport, Connecticut) disambiguation as part of its name. Polaron moved it to (Connecticut) inappropriately IMO. Indeed there are at least 4 other Blessed Sacrament Churches in Connecticut, in Waterbury, Hamden, East Hartford, and Central Manchester. Thanks for beginning to look at this, Orlady. --do ncr am 17:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the "Name {Connecticut)" would have been created otherwise? Since these other articles do not yet exist, the state name is sufficient to distinguish it from other articles of the same name. Be only as precise as necessary. It is such a simple matter to fix this once a second Connecticut article is created. --Polaron | Talk 17:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the disambiguation convention favored by the NRHP Wikiproject, wherein buildings are generally disambiguated by the name of the city and state, is a good rule to apply for churches and other buildings. --Orlady (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but one should always make redirects to other possible disambiguators including (CT), (town, CT), (Connecticut), (town), etc. Also the comma convention. --Polaron | Talk 17:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've done a little editing in Saint Ladislaus Church (which is in South Norwalk -- not "South Norwich", as it was misidentified in the original article name) and concluded that this particular church is notable due to its unusual architecture and its history as a Hungarian immigrant church. --Orlady (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC) The name of that article needs to be disambiguated, as there is at least one other existing article about a "St. Ladislaus Church", namely St. Ladislaus in Chicago. --Orlady (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the Chicago article should have made sure the base name was occupied so that a dab page would have been created when the second article came along. Whatever happens, the base name should not be a red link if there is at least one article of that name. This shows that predisambiguation leads to many problems down the line. --Polaron | Talk 17:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as a case of predisambiguation so much as one of using the Chicago church's very specific name. However, it's rather presumptuous to think that a local church in Connecticut named for a saint is not going to require disambiguation. "St. Ladislaus" seems to be a common name for churches, particularly in eastern Europe and communities populated by immigrants from that region. The source I cited indicates that the design of the church in South Norwalk is patterned after St. Ladislaus churches in Hungary. I found that Chicago church linked in the article about the saint. Other churches by this name are listed or mentioned in the articles Nocrich, List of Brick Gothic buildings, Veľká Paka, National Register of Historic Places listings in Lorain County, Ohio and New Brunswick, New Jersey. The saint's name is also rendered St. Laszlo, which is the name of a church depicted in Hungarians in Saskatchewan. Experiences like that of spending a lot of time yesterday sorting out the various people named "Anthony Cox" or "Tony Cox" (there are still a couple of backlinks to these names whose intended destination isn't clear to me) is making me a fan of predisambiguation for names that are clearly going to be ambiguous. Regarding churches named for St. Ladislaus, if it weren't for Doncram's plea for a moratorium on renaming articles included in this AfD (a plea that I deem to be very reasonable), by now I would have converted St. Ladislaus Church to a disambiguation page and renamed Saint Ladislaus Church to use a name that includes "(South Norwalk, Connecticut)". --Orlady (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For me, all the sacred objects should be notable. Each is a distinctive object in a given location, because of the age and architecture, popularity, etc. Of course, in the initial phase, the lack of information may arise as a stub, but having a base, at least in the diocese. Do not be confused the parish with the church. The parish is the area, and the church is a building.

I am opposed to removing them, but if they are underdeveloped, should be transferred to author-sandox, for better development.

As far as this author, the churches, they need to clarify and correct errors. Also, the names of articles should be written according to established rules for objects of worship. Patron Church, City. For example, "St. Mary Church, Middletown". But not "Church of St Mary. " Location in its name is compulsory in order to properly distinguish between when we have many similar names.

Sorting - Sorting is wrong now. If you sort by location: Country, State, City, it can not interfere with mixture of random names.There should be no separate "Church of St. Ann" and "St. Ann Church. " This is the same patron.You can always create a category by the patron, and sorting as "Ann, Hartford, "Holy Cross, Hartford", etc., more in the Help: Category. --WlaKom (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for some good advice on article naming. However, your position that "all the sacred objects should be notable" appears to be a statement of your personal opinion. I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy that would support that view; WP:ORG appears to be the controlling policy on the notability of local churches. There was also a failed policy proposal on notability of churches; it also did not support your view that "all that is sacred is notable." (Aside: Living, as I do, in the U.S. Bible Belt, I'm rather horrified by the idea that "all churches are notable," since churches multiply like rabbits in this region.) --Orlady (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Examine each - Keeping at least all notable ones St. Benedict's in Stamford is on the National Register of Historic Places - which, IIRC, is sufficient notability per WP. I suspect some others may also fall into such a class -- St. Cyril and Mthodius has a noted architect, for example. Wholesale listings should not be made laxly. Collect (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i had excluded another Stamford NRHP-listed one. Just now dropped St. Benedict's Church (Stamford, Connecticut) from proposal list above (and i had not tagged its article for deletion). I agree that a church being individually listed on NRHP suffices to establish notability. Please do note if i omitted to drop any others. --do ncr am 21:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps the St. Augustine Cathedral (Bridgeport) one is more significant as a cathedral; it is the only one with Cathedral or Basilica in its name; i will mark this one by strikethrough now as probably not to be deleted. I would really welcome comments by editors James Russiello and by Lucascb about which ones they view as more significant and why, probably based on sources which i hope they will share about. --do ncr am 21:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course, we have reservations on some articles about their notability, but the removal discourages editor to work on the development of, and therefore I urge the administrators to transfer them to the author's sandbox, where he can ask others for help to improve them.

I have noticed a tendency to change the name of the article without a place or put the city in brackets. Also I would like to point out that we should add the name of the state to the city's name, only if there are similar cities.I believe that such changes should be discussed in advance, because it concerns not only one state, but hundreds of articles, and change for all of the articles should be reported to Wikipedia:Bot requests. --WlaKom (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - nominator needs to check that all articles named in this AfD have been properly tagged. One I looked at, St. Peter Church (Connecticut), had not been (but I fixed it). I have not systematically checked to see if others were overlooked for tagging. LadyofShalott 23:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding and fixing that one. I've now gone through them all again, while noting locations, and i think they are all tagged properly now. --do ncr am 00:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge most of these into articles about the relevant dioceses; merge SS. Cyril & Methodius' Church (New York City) and St. Raphael's Church (New York City) into SS. Cyril, Methodius, and Raphael's Church (New York City) (the first two churches merged to form the third one); keep the few articles about churches that can be determined to be notable. Few of the articles even hint at notability. As noted above, I have researched Saint Ladislaus Church in South Norwalk and I believe it to be notable, if only for its status as a local landmark, its architecture, and its stained-glass windows. Also, Our Lady Star of the Sea Church appears to be associated with a parochial elementary school that received a Blue Ribbon award. Blue Ribbon awards are generally considered to make a school notable, so the Blue Ribbon award would appear to justify a joint article about the school and the church. I have not yet researched every article on the list, but for the various other churches I researched, the only significant third-party attention I have found was related to sexual abuse by priests. Since I believe it would be WP:UNDUE for an article about a local church to focus on what a priest did to an 11-year-old in 1973 (or whatever), I think the sex abuse information (including some, if not all, of the church names) should go into articles like Sexual abuse scandal in Bridgeport diocese (and involvement in a sex abuse scandal should not, by itself, justify retention of an article about a church). --Orlady (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Another notable one to keep: St. Peter Church (Connecticut); it has an historic building that is stated to be listed on the National Register. More sources are needed for the article, but at least it includes a credible assertion of notability. --Orlady (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC) And another one that has a claim of notability, and therefore I think deserves to be kept: St. Emery Church. It is the descendant of a church that is named in the Catholic Encyclopedia as the second Hungarian Catholic church in America. --Orlady (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is appropriate:As the author of three churches in question, I've worked to implement Orlady's suggestions on merging SS. Cyril & Methodius' Church (New York City) and St. Raphael's Church (New York City) into SS. Cyril, Methodius, and Raphael's Church (New York City). The information has been transferred and SS. Cyril, Methodius, and Raphael's Church (New York City) is more than a stub now. The former St. Raphael's Church (New York City) can be easily merged into SS. Cyril, Methodius, and Raphael's Church (New York City) because they were the same building and the parish history is contained in a new chapter heading. However, the congregation of SS. Cyril & Methodius' Church (New York City) is now part of [SS. Cyril, Methodius, and Raphael's Church (New York City)]] (and its parish history contained in that article) but the actual building is now occupied by the Saints Kiril & Metodij Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Diocese Cathedral. With linking to and from the cathedral article, I think the proposed mergers of the former church articles into their present SS. Cyril, Methodius, and Raphael's Church (New York City) is acceptable.--James R (talk) 24 January 2011

Overall, this is seeming very sensible -- there are two extant churches (one Roman Catholic and one Eastern Orthodox), two buildings, and a lot of history, all of which could be covered in two articles (with some content in both articles). However, there seems to be some confusion of addresses here. The article SS. Cyril, Methodius, and Raphael's Church (New York City) indicates that this merged church occupies the building that originally was St. Raphael's Church (New York City), and both articles list the same street address. However, the article Saints Kiril & Metodij Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Diocese Cathedral also lists that same street address. It appears to me that the Eastern Orthodox Cathedral actually occupies the former building of SS. Cyril & Methodius' Church (New York City), which has a different address. Does the street address in Saints Kiril & Metodij Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Diocese Cathedral need to be changed, or do these articles have different errors that need to be sorted out? --Orlady (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note how these articles can be developed past stubs. Mass deletion will eliminate the chance for these articles to grow naturally.

Delete all where no specific notability is shown (so keep things like NRHP listed ones, or with sufficient coverage for the individual church or parish in reliable, independent sources). Articles like St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish, Middletown are over a year old, and despite being prodded and later redirected still don't give any indication of why they are notable (most of the sources given are general ones, not about that parish, and are included in the same way in many similar articles). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph Parish, Norwich may be relevant as an earlier discussion about a similar parish. Fram (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also refer to the broad discussion in the past about notability of the parish which never reach consensus. So the parish can be notable like every word on Wikipedia. --WlaKom (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to discussions, please link to them as well, so people can easily find what you are referring to. Anyway, I never said that parishes can not be notable, just that a parish isn't a notable entity by default, buthas to show its notability individually, just like most other things on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The articles don't provide assertions of notability for any of these individual churches/parishes, but it appears to me that there is a notable story that could be told about Polish-American churches/parishes in the Norwich diocese, including St. Joseph Parish in Norwich, St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish, Middletown, Our Lady of Perpetual Help Parish, Quaker Hill, and St. Joseph Parish, Rockville. This could be an opportunity to add good content to the article Roman Catholic Diocese of Norwich. --Orlady (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all many of these articles were created less than a week ago by novice(s) that did not properly tag they so that they could be found. Given that the proposer of this afd has himself created hundreds of stub NRHPs that cite only the (at least somewhat inaccurate) NRHP database, it is disingenous to not allow them some time to be improved. By some time, I mean at least a month. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being on the NRHP is a sign of notability, as an outside institution has recognised the place or building as being of historical interest. Incorrect entries should individually be corrected if necessary. However, for these parishes and churches, no such independent indicator of notability has been given. The groups of aticles are clearly not comparable. And the fact that so many of these were created recently is not the fault of the nominator, but of the creator. If he or she needs more time to develop these articles, they shouldn't be created all at once, but a new one should be started once the previous one meets our basic guidelines. But even after the deletion nominations were added, the creator made no effort to address the actual concerns. Fram (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, they most certainly are comparable. I've pointed out on several articles that the information in the NRHP database was inaccurate (ie: Kaatz Icehouse being razed in 1978 (that's 32 years of documentation by NRHP counter to the Library of Congress!), wrong name for the Housatonic River Railroad Bridge, etc. Simply put, it is not the most reliable source. To say that an article with citations only from it is authoritative is like saying that the articles here with none are. Many of these articles were created in the last week and a mass delete of 50+ articles is of no benefit to anyone. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:V. Verifiability doesn't equal truth, and we can only include info based on the former, no matter what we consider to be the latter, the truth. Articles based on the NRHP database are based directly on a reliable, independent source, which even if incorrect is still highly relevant for the notability. You can always later move and correct an article to read "The X bridge, listed incorrectkly in the NRHP as the Y bridge", as long as there enough other reliable sources indicating that "Y bridge" is incorrect (not solely that X bridge is correct). But all that has no bearing on whether we should have an article on that bridge. The same applies here, but instead of a reliable independent source showing the notability, we have nothing: an article like Immaculate Heart of Mary Church (Connecticut) is only sourced to the diocese, which is obviously not an independent source. Please don't mix four distinct things: correctness of information / verifiability of information / independency of the sources / notability of the topic. The current discussions are about the latter two, the NRHP discussions are about the first two. Fram (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well versed in verifiability, thanks. My point is more one of time: it would be virtually impossible to update 50 articles in a short span. All I'm asking for is that a reasonable time frame be allowed for the articles to be improved. As I've mentioned, many are less than a week old. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Very large, multi-article AfD informing that project of this discussion. LadyofShalott 16:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose mass deletion. No point in putting 20 people on trial, accusing them all together of something. If there is to be an Afd, needs to be done one by one, else can not have guilt by association as a basis of deletion. History2007 (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The personal sniping notwithstanding, this AfD isn't about people; it's about a large number of articles that look pretty much like, don't assert the notability of their topics, and don't cite sources to provide evidence that that topic is notable according to either WP:GNG or WP:ORG. When the entire text content of a large number of articles is unsourced and is limited to content like that of the two articles reproduced below, it is unproductive to conduct a separate AfD discussion for each individual article:

"St. Mark is a Roman Catholic church in Stratford, Connecticut, part of the Diocese of Bridgeport. St. Mark is located in Stratford's North End and was founded in 1960."

"St. Gabriel Church, Roman Catholic, Stamford, Connecticut is part of the Diocese of Bridgeport. This modern church church dates from shortly after the founding of the parish in 1963. The architects have yet to be determined."

Insisting on a separate AfD discussion for each of a large number of nonnotable-looking cookie-cutter-like stubs would be an overemphasis on process. Admittedly, this single discussion has grown to be very unwieldy -- and it will likely take longer to resolve than the typical AfD, but it is more efficient to discuss all of these parishes/churches collectively than to hold a separate discussion about each one. --Orlady (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, Oppose mass deletion: Hi, this is James R, one of the accused creators here to defend this project (as I consider the recent works of User:Lukascb and others). These debates always occur when I’m tight on time so I’ve tried to group together anything relevant from my point of view for the debate.

To address some of the points I see:

1. Review of individual arguments

2. Background: My own interest

3. My own impression on Lukascb’s project.

4. Defense of notability or potential notability

5. Mechanics of article redundancies

5.1 Parish vs. church

5.2 Associated buildings

5.3 Previous buildings

5.4: Parish mergers and the associated articles

5.5: A stub of a landmark that will never be on a landmark list

6. Potential value of this small scale project

1. Review (for my own benefit) There are many arguments, I’ll focus on the efficiency of mass deletion over individual deletion. What I try to justify below is that creating a group of stubs with a number of internal connections, cited information, and the current generation of information for those stubs better connects and illuminates the unearthed and requested information than a random scattering of a few undeniably notable church building articles. The article stubs nominated that I know about were generated (mostly) by User:Lukascb who was using a combination of original research, research at regional libraries, website coverage, and Significant coverage in available publications and newspapers, particularly with relevance to their architectural character and creators. This is a ambitious project that features a number of stubs at the moment but each article is being refined to be more notable and if the majority do not yet meet the GNP, they shortly will.

1. I agree with User:Orlady that not “every church designed by a notable architect is notable. Notability is not inherited.” However, I would add not notable alone for its connection to a notable architect. Within the article, subtleties of design can be illuminated that could be compared with the architect’s other work, and the article will be a platform for other notable aspects, such as organs, notable congregants, events, and recent news/scandals. ##To limit notability to churches that have just been related to scandal and ignore their other relevant and notable features would create a bias of notability that most church articles (in this collection) on Wikipedia would be notable only for sexual abuse. I see that this is not Orlady’s specific point and I agree that such information should primarily be located on a list of such abuses.
2. Regarding, User:Fram (12:27, 24 January 2011)opinion that sub articles not on NHRP should be deleted, please refer to my fourth point. Thank you, Markvs88 (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC), for stating my point more succinctly.[reply]
3. Regarding article naming brought up by User:WlaKom (19:22, 23 January 2011), I’ve made my comments on User:Lukascb’s talk page. I will refine it later.

2. Background—my own interests: I am not overly concerned with RC churches or religious life in NY or CT. I am, however, interested in ecclesiastical architecture (both designers, builders, and building examples). There are a number of sources for this information, some online, some on local websites, some on specialty websites, some in non-google indexed pdf files, some in well-respected books, and some in regional interest libraries. There is no one source that collects the information. Searching for the quick reference information occasionally produces a specialty website about the organ that gives some details on the church but there is generally little else available online and no citations that could verify the information.

Wikipedia offers the platform to create articles that could collect relevant and notable information for specific comparison of other church organs in the region, other works by that architect, other examples of that architectural style, date, etc. While no one disagrees with this, the debate is whether these numerous stubs will germinate into these collections.

3. From what I know about User:Lukascb, the individual has a very good collection of books, notes, and other information on RC church buildings, architecture, and architects. The individual has been visiting regional history libraries and collecting the obscure information and intends to use Wikipedia to publish this research, which would be unavailable to most people outside the region or with limited time. This is a very ambitious and generous project to make available on Wikipedia. User:Lukascb is a novice and had produced many stubs that currently look lack notability, but the individual has more research to add to these articles, has collected the links to the relevant websites and pdfs, and had also created the architect articles to place these works in greater context. While the individaul’s formatting could certainly be improved, his work is very time consuming (especially extracting relevant information from obscure pdf files that are easily verified but difficult to open). :User:Lukascb’s work and contributions should be encouraged. I have been tracking his contributions and trying to clean up the overtly obvious mistakes and formatting glitches. The number of revisions present with each article suggested to me the article stubs were works in progress and that I should be patient with their eventual notability.

One advantage to a large scale effort at creating these article stubs is that it potentially links up and cleans up the extant semi-orphans that were well-researched pet projects of other contributors. Grouped together, the overall quality of these subjects will improve on Wikipedia.

4. Notability outside the NHRP: A building, particularly a church, listed on the NHRP or local city preservation list is a sign of notability but its inclusion is a political decision. There are many more notable buildings omitted from these lists because the decision often hinges on owner’s consent (see my 5.5). Churches are a particular category that are frequently omitted because of ownership issues. While no one is saying none of the newly created church articles are noteworthy, the prejudice of notability as defined by the NHRP has been translated onto Wikipedia so that NHRP church article stubs are safe, while other church article stubs are flagged and need to be developed with potential mistake-causing haste to prevent their early deletion.

I fully realize any church stub may not always meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. To me, churches are always notable for their community, social, and religious purposes, and sometimes architecturally. A random orphaned building article certainly can be irrelevant and worthy of deletion. However, I believe that as a group of articles (on RC churches in the diocese of Bridgeport or RC churches built to the designs of architect Anthony J. DePace), hopefully first collected in a list of RC churches in the Diocese of Bridgeport, their relevance increases.

Admittedly, the stubs are cookie-cutter generated but revenant and notable information has been steadily added to these. Architectural styles, building dates, parish history, architect names, and social history. Apart from the sexual abuse scandals, these buildings may have notable community members and might be good architectural examples. The attribution of architects to the works with verified citations has already caught disproved some attributions and anecdotes in some popular published sources.

5.Mechanics of article redundancies: The list of articles for the firing squad are all very similar cookie-cutter stubs that have yet to be developed. They do have external sites with more information and the many empty tags on their historic building infobox / parish church info box invite contribution to any passerby who might stumble upon the article while browsing the Net. As I’ve stated earlier, I believe these will be developed into notable articles. Deleting these articles and reducing them to a single list article of churches in the RC Diocese of Bridgeport, etc., will result in the loss of building dates, architect names, etc., and their benefit to the category lists.

5.1. Parish vs. church:

That said, I believe that this project has exposed many redundant Wikipedia articles for separate listings of those focused on church buildings and those focused on parishes. I can’t imagine that parishes are notable, especially if the info could be collected in a chapter under the parish church building article. I prefer to create the article with the parish history and separate the building/associate buildings history into a separate chapter heading.

5.2. Associated buildings: On the theme of using Wikipedia articles to collect relevant information, the parish and church building should be with the associated buildings (rectories, possibly even schools). The NHRP article stubs often create separate articles for churches and rectories, etc. This is also acceptable but as stubs, they are rarely connected. Further, the article titles are confused by their original NHRP designation name (ie: South Congregational Church, Chapel, Ladies Parlor, and Rectory), which due to such complicated names often omits the location.

5.3. Previous buildings: Rarely is a notable church the first building the congregation used. Three scenarios I frequently come across on Wikipedia: :::A) Sometimes the church was founded elsewhere and moved several times, building new structures or moving into those abandoned by another community.

B) Sometimes, the present congregation within the church was not the congregation that originally built the church.

C) The congregation has an earlier church, it is somehow demolished, and they rebuild it on site.

Regarding A, I collect the parish history under the present church article, listed under different chapter headings. If there was a notable building that was occupied/built and abandoned before the present structure, it may deserve a separate article that deals with its later (or earlier) history (ie: Middle Dutch Church (New York City)). Regarding B, again, I prefer one article with many redirects and chapter headings. I generally prefer the original title of the church as built, or its most notable title, because the new congregation may be temporary. I hesitate to give examples, fearing a lack of notability and therefore deletion but I will anyway: Washington Square Methodist Episcopal Church (This church building is no longer a church so the title can remain unchallenged.) When the church is listed under its present title in many publications and is still an active church, however, I give the present title Iglesia Pentecostal La Luz del Mundo (Brooklyn, New York). I think this really depends on what the notability of the article is based on. If it’s the original architecture, then the original title should suffice. If it’s community based, then the present title is more relevant.

5.4. Mergers: Three of the articles proposed for deletion are mine. The parish churches of St. Raphael's Church (New York City) and SS. Cyril & Methodius' Church (New York City) were merged to create SS. Cyril, Methodius, and Raphael's Church (New York City). There is a good argument to merge both articles into the new parish, or just one into the present combined parish name and leave the St. Raphael’s as a former church article. Against deleting St. Raphael’s, it appears to be a more significant building with better materials, architecture, and possibly earlier date (building information for both churches in incomplete). However, it may be reused or demolished. Both could produce notable events to document on Wikipedia. Research on these three articles is not complete yet.

5.5. Another stub I recently created that is being debated for deletion is Our Lady of Victory's Church (New York City). This is a highly visible landmark church in New York designed by a renowned firm in a dated conformist style. Group connections with other churches in downtown, RC churches, and designs by that firm add to its relevance. Because of its location, the RC Archdiocese will never allow it to be landmarked. While it is a forgettable building, it is notable in its location, dedication and date (Our Lady of Victory, 1945). I am confident this stub can be developed into a notable article.

6. Potential value of this small scale project: User:Lukascb has been generating the material to create a great cross-platform of architectural and social information that does not exist elsewhere on the web. One church article I created on a church that was (and will always be) ignored in architectural publications, that featured a church, school, and rectory all in the same building, turned out to be highly important as an example of the FBI entering a church to arrest a serving cleric. Although the three doors of the church were all shared by the mixed use program, the FBI entered the building as if it were a rectory. Recently, the music program has been featured in the New York Times (I still need to add that part). This is not the most notable fact on Wikipedia but it would otherwise be lost without a building article Church of St. Gregory the Great (New York City) to anchor the information.--James R (talk) 24 January 2011

Keep. This is the first time I saw anybody claim that a church is not-notable; if this is not in our notability conventions, it should be, per "tradition makes rules" approach. I rarely see article about parishes, but I'd think they are notable; I can see them as being useful. Not sure if notability of parishes was discussed before (I'd guess so, but where...?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

article naming discussion

Moved to talk page for this page. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

break

Strongly oppose mass deletion and a few editors who should know better should be reminded not to bite the newbies - Please see WP:Bite and read it! I haven't seen more than one mass deletion attempt like this - and I didn't like that one either. For now, the best thing we can do is take a few articles one at a time and help the authors understand what is needed to establish notability. At that point we can presumably help them to userfy the remaining articles (if there seems to be a systematic problem) and in some cases just add a ref or two to get the articles above minimum notability standards. Have folks out there heard that Wikipedia is losing good editors and failing to gain new ones because the atmosphere around here can be toxic at times? This looks like a perfect case in point. While there may be huge problems with non-notable garage bands, video games, and some just plain folks trying to get their articles onto Wikipedia, I haven't noticed this with churches. There's no harm in taking a couple of days at a minimum before deleting somebody's entire Wiki-output - we might as well do it politely and accurately if it needs to be done, and that will take some time. Smallbones (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree . All listed above article should be grouped and discussed on their improvement.

To Doncram. Please remove your mass requests for deletion from all listed articles, so we can start work for improvement. Non of request meet Wikipedia criteria and requirements.

To Lukascb - stop adding new article and work on them in your sandbox to make them right.

To all who have knowledge about RC churches and parishes - check Lukascb sandbox and help him improve his articles.--WlaKom (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WlaKom in this edit sought to unilaterally remove one article from the AFD. NO ONE SHOULD DO THAT. I may have mildly confused matters by myself removing one NRHP-listed place from the list of articles here that i had accidentally included myself, as i explained somewhere above, but that was for an article that was never itself tagged for deletion by me or anyone else, and i have not removed an AFD notice from any articles. WlaKom, if you persist in any such disruptive actions while the AFD is ongoing I will seek to have you BLOCKED from wikipedia. Also WlaKom moved that article, while the AFD is ongoing. I am not sure if the move is a blockable offense but it is also disruptive and confusing. Please wait for conclusion of an AFD discussion. WlaKom seems to have shown disregard for consensus of editors in prior discussions and may be proving to be an unreasonable, disruptive force here. Behave, or else!

To answer WlaKom's request, I am not removing the AFD from all the listed articles, because they are under valid AFD discussion involving many editors now. I should not and do not want to stop this discussion. I myself am seeking in this AFD to have some criteria identified to separate between articles that should be deleted or moved to userspace, vs. articles that can be kept. Disruptive moves and AFD notice removals by WlaKom or other editors make progress harder. Frankly i would be inclined to help Lukasbc somehow, but if he is being helped or egged on or exploited by an "ally" operating outside of policy/practices/consensus from previous AFD, then the only reasonable decision may be to delete all the articles and implement escalating blocks or other harsh treatment on Lukascb as well. That is, if he takes encouragement from disruptive editors to proceed with disruptive actions himself (not saying that he has done so). WlaKom you are hurting, not helping, Lukascb by disrupting this AFD. --do ncr am 10:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote before. Your and others request for deletion didn't meet any Wikipedia criteria and should be remove it, until we agreed on the criteria for the articles. See Wikipedia:AFD. The above list is very random, without reasonable explanation that each article meet the AFD. Also discussion is about St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut).

I have request to Administrators to remove the AFD and initate proper way of discusion about the issue related to those articles. --WlaKom (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As there are valid delete votes/comments asside from those of the nominator, even if doncram were to desire to withdraw the nomination, it would not be possible at this point (though he, like anyone else, is free to express any opinion about each of the invovled articles). The AfD must proceed. LadyofShalott 00:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Someone mentioned WP:BITE above. The creator of most of these articles (I mainly did a spot check) has been around since 2006; that's hardly considered a newcomer. Otherwise, you can consider me, an administrator and CheckUser, a newcomer, since I've only been around since 2008. –MuZemike 01:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

specific exceptions

It has been asserted that several articles covered in the AFD have specific, different circumstances warranting their being kept, even if the overall AFD results in most articles being deleted. Please propose and explain specific exceptions here. --do ncr am 11:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

exception for St. Augustine Cathedral (Bridgeport)

As a cathedral, more notable than others. --do ncr am 11:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further i note there is one source which looks independent used in the article, "George Curtis Waldo (1917). History of Bridgeport and Vicinity, Volume 1". I haven't consulted the source myself. But i am willing to believe that the cathedral was built in 1866 and that it survives today and that, as a substantial now-historic building it probably meets wikipedia notability standards. If anyone else agrees, and no one disagrees, i would propose resolution of this AFD being Keep for this one. --do ncr am 18:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

exception for Holy Name of Jesus Church (Connecticut)

About the one in Stratford, CT, (not to be confused with Church of the Holy Name of Jesus, in Stamford, Connecticut, which was considered for NRHP listing in Stamford MPS document)

It has been asserted Holy Name of Jesus Church (Connecticut) should be excluded, by Markvs88. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncram (talk • contribs) 11:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doncram, they will be excluded because it and Saint Theresa Church are now better cited than hundreds of NRHP articles in Connecticut such as Allen's Cider Mill or Belltown Historic District, which rely on a single resource shown to be (multiple times) non-authoritative that were created by you. If they stand, these stand. Yes, this is exactly the same as University of New Haven Police. If you disagree, I look forward to one heck of an AFD regarding all of those stubs. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comments about Allen's Cider Mill and Belltown Historic District are simply false. Both articles each have two reliable sources, one being a reference to the National Register Information System which reliably establishes that the places have been listed on the U.S. NRHP. In many previous AFD discussions long ago, it was accepted by consensus of wikipedia editors that NRHP listing suffices to establish wikipedia notability. Each of these 2 articles also has a link to the full NRHP nomination document which provides extensive explanation about what is notable about the place. I think the commment about some source being "non-authoritative" is about the fact there are indeed some typos or other errors in the NRIS database. That is well-known and documented by myself and other NRHP editors at wp:NRIS info issues CT and similar workpages for other states (and we are working with the National Register to see to corrections of their NRIS data). The NRIS database is nonetheless reliable for identifying that a place is NRHP-listed.

There is no comparison of those two articles to the ones in this AFD. It is clearly established in those two articles that they are notable places, in terms already accepted by wide consensus of wikipedia editors. --do ncr am 21:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, fine. New York Belting and Packing Co. and C. J. Starr Barn and Carriage House then. If a NRHP can vouch for such a property alone and stand, the diocese of a religion can do the same. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense! I see those 2 NRHP articles were started by editor Rhvanwinkle, and they contain assertion of notability (that the places are NRHP-listed) and include reliable source (the NRIS reference). From past experience, Markvs88 fully well knows that full NRHP nomination documents are available for those and could easily be added to their articles. But that is not even needed for establishing notabilty.

Markvs88, I do not believe you are serious in your objection. You could, i suppose, open an AFD about one or a few or many articles on NRHP-listed places. But I predict that would be Speedily Closed, as it has been well-decided already that NRHP listing is an adequately independent, professional judgment that places are notable. It is not the owner of a property asserting the place is notable; it is the review by architectural historians, by state professionals, and by national professionals, that establishes the place meets a set of 4 criteria (described in links from National Register of Historic Places article.

Markvs88, what is your point in criticizing the NRHP articles? I think the point made by those articles is that the quality of reference establishing notability is what matters. You don't need a long article to establish notability; you need an authoritative reference attesting to the places' notability. Or, is there some different advice you want to provide to Lukascb and others? If your point is merely that you don't like the NRHP articles, then that is irrelevant here and probably unhelpful to them. --do ncr am 21:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice mentality you are showing here, tit-for-tat playground stuff. Why is it so hard to make a cae for some of these articles without dragging in completely unrelated other disputes you have with editors? Fram (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fram! Just so you understand: after watching the Doncram/Poloran wars, I know that there is a fine line in these matters. Doncram and I have worked together, and we have had several disagreements as well. But I think he understands what I'm getting at: if minimal notability works for one group of articles, it must work for another. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is in no way part of the "Doncram/Polaron wars". Doncram may have noticed the existence of these articles because of my renames but the decision to propose deletion is completely Doncram's. Now, if it is the case that Doncram pursued this mass AFD as some way to get back at me, then that would have been what is the "tit-for-tat playground stuff". I have nothing against proposing specific AFDs for the handful of non-notable cases but it appears to me that most are notable in some way. There are also way more church articles from other states/countries that have even less sourcing than this current batch so I am indeed quite puzzled by Doncram's motivations for doing just this set of articles. I don't even know which are included in this AFD and which are not anymore. Is it just the ones listed above? --Polaron | Talk 16:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to get pretty personal - please see my comments about "toxic atmosphere" above, and my proposal below Smallbones (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Polaron. I did not mean to imply that this was a part of that, just that I've watched (and occasionally put in my $0.02) while the two of you "duked it out" over quite a few issues. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the Holy Name church, the current version of the article has four in-line references. Two are mentions in priest sex scandal context. The third is an outdated announcement of "Sat. December 12: Pierogy sale — 10-2, Holy Name of Jesus Church parish hall, College Street. Uncooked frozen pierogies $4/dozen. Advance orders: Mike Stifil, ...". The fourth is a "Slovak Family Falcon" newspaper published in Passaic, New Jersey, that contains six scattered announcements of meetings or events at Holy Name, among announcements of many similar minor events at other churches in the northeast. The article does include statement " The gothic revival church was built to the designs of the highly regarded local church architect Andrew G. Patrick and completed in 1957." but that is not sourced. Lukascb, did you add that, can you explain/comment on your source? Discussion elsewhere on this page is that just knowing the architect name will not suffice, however, and even if the architect is notable not every church designed by the person will be notable.

Also it is asserted that "Holy Name is the seat of Slovensky Katolícky Sokol Group 2, or The Slovak Alliance of Greater Bridgeport, the national Slovak cultural society" which is POSSIBLY an assertion of notability. But that is supported by nonsensical footnote to the announcement of pierogies for sale. If editors are going around adding nonsense footnotes purporting to support assertions of notability, that is pretty awful. Overall, I am not impressed and do not see notability established. Markvs88, can you clarify how this is a notable topic and an adequately sourced article? I see no assertion of notability and no reliable, independent source about anything substantial about the church. So i do not see any reason why this article should be treated as an exception to any general decision (to delete articles or to redirect them to a Diocese article or to move them to userspace, whatever the general decision may be). --do ncr am 18:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

exception for Saint Theresa Church

Markvs88 has asserted this is well-supported (or better supported than some NRHP articles). It has 8 inline references, but i think all are either to the church website or are mere announcements of events that happen to use the space. The information that a musician did a recording in the church is interesting, i'll grant, but i don't think the references are sufficient. They appear to be padding, perhaps added in response to this AFD, but really are nonsensical useless announcements of meetings or other events at the church, not actually supporting notability. I do also notice some beginning discussion of the church, apparently from some source not given, that is a bit more substantial, perhaps added by Lukascb. Lukascb, can you comment?

Overall, I think notability is not established, no different treatment for this one is needed. --do ncr am 18:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

exceptions noted by Orlady

I've already listed my specific exceptions above, but I will repeat them here (see my earlier comments for my reasons):

Saint Ladislaus Church in South Norwalk - keep
Our Lady Star of the Sea Church - weak keep for the parish's association with a Blue Ribbon elementary school (include the school in the same article)
merge and redirect SS. Cyril & Methodius' Church (New York City) and St. Raphael's Church (New York City) into SS. Cyril, Methodius, and Raphael's Church (New York City)
St. Peter Church (Connecticut) - keep
St. Emery Church - keep --Orlady (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Counting !votes so far, I see 6 opposes or keep all, 1 keep most, and 1 delete all. It's pretty clear that a consensus to delete all is going to be very hard to get. What's being proposed for deleting is also unclear i.e. what are the exceptions, what was mistakenly included ...There is however a reasonable case that some of the articles lack notability.

I propose that

the nominator withdraw the nomination and try to help the authors of the articles to better understand notability requirements.
the authors userfy the least notable articles and work on them further
if, after a reasonable time (say a week) other articles haven't been improved then the nominator can bring back a limited number of articles to AfD, say 5 at a time.

Smallbones (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I need to just chalk this up as yet one more instance of a female being ignored/invisible at Wikipedia, but I don't see where you classified my !vote on that list. I definitely did not support "keep all," "keep most," or "delete all." I would classify my stated opinion as "merge most" (wherein "merge" is tantamount to deletion) but keep those very few that provide some credible assertion of independent notability for the topic. --Orlady (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated above, even if doncram were of mind to withdraw the nomination, it would not be possible at this point with there being valid "votes" to delete by editors other than the nominator. LadyofShalott 00:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About part 1 of Smallbones' proposal, I and others here are trying to work with the article creators to clarify notability issues, in part by having this AFD discussion. I myself would welcome the article creators' stating some understanding now of notability including recognizing that reliable sourcing is needed to establish notability. If they have some reliable source and would just require some time to develop the articles using that source, I would welcome their asking for time to do so. So far i have not seen that.

About part 2, Smallbones is proposing that the articles be userified rather than deleted. That means they would be moved from Wikipedia mainspace to a work area in the creator's Userspace. For example, to move St. Mary's Church (Greenwich, Connecticut) to User:Lukascb/St. Mary's Church (Greenwich, Connecticut). Lukascb, would that be okay by you? I would be fine with the articles being moved to Userspace rather than deleted. Of course they should not be moved back to mainspace until they have been developed adequately.

About part 3, Smallbones suggests not deleting articles for a week's time, and then considering unimproved articles in batches of 5. I don't follow why. Why not move them all out of mainspace, and set a limit of 5 per week on how many can be moved back into mainspace? I wouldn't really support that either. The articles in mainspace should be the ones that have adequate support for their notability. The ones without adequate support should be removed, all, now, I think. Smallbones, do you want to clarify or revise what you are proposing with this? But if Lukascb agrees that articles can be moved to Lukascb's userspace until they are adequately developed as to notability, perhaps we would have a resolution already. --do ncr am 22:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St Maurice Stanford CT

I suggest that even though the artical is small there is enough in there that makes it worth keeping. It now has a supporting artical about the firm that built it, Polak and Sullivan. This was the most prolific builders of RC churches in the history of Connecticut. And Howard J. Sullivan was well enough thought of by his contemporaries to have served on the Architectural review board of the State of Connecticut, for a time as president. It is unfortunate that there is very little information on this firm. They did not return any of their questionnairs to the AIA, which usually provides quite a bit of information on education, work history and the like. There are a handful of articles in the New Haven Public Library and their many buildings are documented individually at the parishes. I have searched but to this point I can not find an obituary for either Sullivan or his associate.

St. Maurice was named after Bishop Maurice McAuliffe of Hartford and this also has been noted in the article. At the church's website mention is made of some interesting stained glass which may be worth expanding on here.Lukascb (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

Separate AfD for each. But correct immediately those amazing renames. How could anyone possibly think, for example, that there is only one church dedicated to Our Lady of Peace Church? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative close as no consensus. This nom is far too wide-ranging for proper discussion. The scale of discussion makes that clear. I would suggest that most local churches are NN in WP terms, so that they should not have an article, but not so NN that WP should ignore them. They may be locally significant (or utterly insignificant). In the latter case, WP should ignore them completely. The best solution with locally significant facilities (be they churches, sports stadia, parks, etc) is to mention them (in a sentence or two) in the place where they are, citing the church (etc) website as a refernece. Having thus merged a summary, the existing article can be converted to a redirect. The retention of the redirect can then be discussed at WP:RFD, if thought necessary. I am in England and thus not qualified to determine which churches are notable: it may be that a few deserve an article. However, churches involved with sex abuse allegations are probably suffering from WP:COATHANGER. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: The articles do not mention sex abuse allegations, and I don't believe anyone thinks they should do so. In searching for third-party documentation of these churches, almost all of what I found was documentation of priest sex abuse. Unfortunately, the Bridgeport diocese is one that was particularly prominent in connection with U.S. priest sex abuse scandals, and many of these churches figured prominently in the scandals. The article Sexual abuse scandal in Bridgeport diocese could be significantly expanded to discuss the sordid history of the scandals and their effect on the diocese, including names of some of the churches and schools involved, but WP:ONEEVENT indicates that the sex abuse scandals alone do NOT make these individual churches notable. --Orlady (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC) PS - I believe you meant to refer to WP:COATRACK. --Orlady (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per Peterkingiron — this is just way too large, and the subjects too varied, to be able to achieve consensus. Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is way too large. I don't have time to review all right now and make a closing-type proposal, could get to this weekend probably. But where exceptions have been proposed, i expect I would agree that many/most/all could be dropped and there would be consensus for that. That reduces size somewhat. The majority are cookie-cutter articles, maybe of a couple types, and all lacking general notability being established. A solution may be to move all the ocokie-cutter ones to a userpage, i think that was what Smallbones was proposing. There is room for agreement in big parts of all of this. It just requires some good process work. I'll return this weekend. thanks. --do ncr am 16:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all at AfD and.... In an extended comment that was later moved (by another editor, not me) with further discussion to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)#arbitration needed?, editor User:Uzma Gamal called for all the articles to be Kept (and also called for arbitration and made other comments about the process of this AFD and particularly about my actions in this AFD. Uzma Gamal's comment was at 16:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC). To any closing administrator, please do see Uzma Gamal's comment and other comments at the Talk page. --do ncr am 00:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph, Danbury and St. Patrick, Bridgeport

I have made adjustments to both of these articles that should help with your noteability issues. Both were designed by the firm Dywer and McMahon and there is now a supporting Wikipedia artaile on that firm. Please take note that the work of John J. McMahon is considered significant enough that his papers have are now available at the Connecticut State Library (a link has been provided in the article).

I have also added some supporting information on the St. Joseph article including a link to a local website that should add to noteability. Furthermore I have corrected the architectural reference in the St. Patrick article so that it credits Dwyer and McMahon as the architect rather than Whiton and McMahon.Lukascb (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list earlier in this AfD indicates that this assertion of notability is for St. Joseph Parish (Ansonia), but this discussion appears to refer to St. Joseph Church (Danbury, Connecticut). I'll comment on both.

I don't find anything in the article for St. Joseph's Ansonia that would indicate notability per WP:ORG or WP:GNG. I don't see it passing the GNG based on the third-party citations; those citations are are to a Polish-American genealogy website, which is not likely to be a reliable source (see WP:RS), and to a Catholic Directory, which is unlikely to be a source of substantial coverage. Regarding WP:ORG, nothing in the article impresses me as indicating anything particularly remarkable about the church.
The third-party source cited in St. Joseph Church (Danbury, Connecticut) appears to be this church's entry in the local newspaper's directory of local churches -- not an indicator of notable per the GNG. The photos and description in that directory listing do indicate that the church is an impressive building within the community, which could be a claim to WP:ORG notability. I am having trouble evaluating the notability of the architect (I note that he is not named in documentation about the building identified as a his most important work). Regardless, English Wikipedia holds that notability is not inherited -- being designed by a notable architect is not by itself a claim to notability. Truly independent documentation of the significance of this building could help demonstrate notability, but notability does not seem to have been established yet. --Orlady (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC) I found one source that might help with demonstrating the building's notability: A professional stained-glass photographer has chosen to document the church's windows at this webpage. Also, in 1909 the church's priest was instrumental in settling a major hat industry strike (probably many of the parishioners were union members).[1][2] --Orlady (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the Information on St. Jospeh

Thanks, Orlady for pointing out the website on the stained glass. I have added it to the links on the page.Lukascb (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Victory

I'm really surprised that Our Lady of Victory's Church (New York City) has been included in this discussion. The church is the work of a distinguished firm that had worked on major monuments in Washington DC and would later design the Cathedral of St. Joseph in Hartford. And it's a good building.

Why are you holding these very worthy buildings to such a high standard for noteability? Just my opinion, but I do not believe that by doing so you are adding to the worthiness of Wikipedia.

I am a member of an r.c. parish that has a very nice Victorian Gothic church built by a highly regarded local architect from the Boston area. Our building does not have the kind of 'international standing' that some people seem to require for inclusion in Wipipedia. But we have a great deal of historical information on the church, the establishment of the parish and building of the structure, the expansion of the parish to include other buildings, the experience of the community in the 1938 hurricane, a substantial redesign of the building by a very important architectural firm already lsited in Wikipedia, and on and on. And this building has been included in our city and state records as being notable. So why then am I concerned that if I were to add a Wikipedia artaile on this church it would be flagged by people here as not notable?

But there are plenty of articles in here that don't meet such an exacting criteria, and to my way of thinking most of them shouldnt really need to. An axample would be the aforementioned New York City church which, in my view, adds real value to Wikipedia and should not be removed.Lukascb (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the time this church was listed at the beginning of this AfD, the article did not assert the topic's notability. Old version. I agree that it appears to be notable now (but I do wonder about the name "Our Lady of Victory's." Should it be "Our Lady of Victory Church"?). --Orlady (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This church should be titled "Our Lady of Victory Church (New York City)" and I suggest a move to that name with a REDIRECT from the earlier name. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a disambiguation page for entities called "Our Lady of Victory", at Our Lady of Victory (disambiguation). On the whole, naming of these various church articles is a mess -- slight naming variations seem to have been used all over Wikipedia to create article names that are unique but do not disambiguate, such as "Our Lady of Victory Catholic Church" and "Our Lady Of Victory Church." --Orlady (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make it right, you have to start from standardization of articles name. I know, I know that this is very time consuming, but worth it. You can start from renaming churches by state or by denomination. Let's start with the discussion on standardization of articles names on churches depending on the religion. See Polish list of churches by patron pl:Kategoria:Świątynie według wezwania--WlaKom (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dunlap, David W. (2004). From Abyssinian to Zion: A Guide to Manhattan's Houses of Worship. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-12543-7., which is authoritative, there is no possessive "s" in the church's name, so I have moved the article to Our Lady of Victory Church (New York City), with a redirect from the name given above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Peter Church Bridgeport

This church was awarded a high prize in international competition. This was noted by the architect in a questionair returned to and later published by the AIA. Certainly the architect must have done a half decent job producing this building for it to be successful in this way.

Tomorrow I'm going to be checking with some people who work for the State of Conneticut to see if they have a state citation board for architecture and if they can help establish a bit mor of a standard at to what noteability is with regard to these buildings. I suggest that probably all of us here are not competent to do the same.Lukascb (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability" for Wikipedia's purposes is not necessarily the same as "notability" within a professional field. In determining whether a topic qualifies for a stand-alone article, Wikipedia considers the factors discussed at WP:Notability. The main test of notability is the general notability guideline: "Has the topic received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject?" The terms "significant coverage", "reliable sources," and "independent" are discussed on that page that I linked and on Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Note that a personal communication from an official of the state board of architecture would not qualify as coverage by a reliable independent source for the purpose of determining notability.
Note also that a topic need not be notable to be documented in a broader article about a notable topic. Thus, individual parishes and churches can be documented in relevant articles, such as Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport or Stratford, Connecticut or an article about an architect, regardless of whether those individual churches are notable. --Orlady (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene: I listed out "Houses of worship" many moons ago on Stratford, Connecticut, Trumbull, Connecticut and on a few other pages because there were 2 or 3 listed with no citations and I was trying to improve the town articles above "C". IMO they should be listed on their own religion's pages and on town pages, but that shouldn't (and I'm sure Orlady don't mean it to?) replace them as stubs if citations of notability can be found for them. My last count is at least 10 so far which have been proven notable, I hope this climbs even higher. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulleted lists of churches like the one in the Stratford article represent a good start toward content development. :-) However, because they can get in the way of visualizing other ways to present the information, sometimes the presence of a good list can impede further expansion of the article in the prose form that Wikipedia prefers. To help people visualize prose discussing the individual churches and their role in the community or diocese, I've looked around in featured articles for some good examples. I didn't find anything ideal, but the relevant examples I found are Radcliffe, Greater Manchester (see the "Religious sites" section), Sale, Greater Manchester (see "Religion" section), and Stephens City, Virginia (also has a "Religion" section). There's only one featured article for a Roman Catholic diocese, and it doesn't discuss parishes, but it's still a worthwhile model for article development: Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami.
Regarding that Stratford list, note that the external links should be removed from that list. :-( --Orlady (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

? I'm confused, Orlady... how would WP:ELYES (first point) not apply as each is to the offical site of an entity (each house of worship). (?) I looked through wp:elno and don't see which bullet would apply. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ELPOINTS (which takes precedence over ELYES): "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article". Those links would (per WP:ELYES) be acceptable in the "External links" sections of articles about the entities that own the websites, but they don't belong in the article body. --Orlady (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That does make some sense, but OTOH... they'd probably just be re-added as references again as some editor would come along and try to delete the houses or worship section for being unreferenced! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One list needed

This AfD discussion needs a single list of all 64 articles being nominated for deletion, especially since some articles have been renamed. Out of consideration for the wp:Administrator who will have to decide which articles will be kept and which articles will be deleted, someone should prepare a list and post it here. There are comments above about particular articles, but it is difficult for anyone seeking to improve an article, or to say that some article should be deleted, to have their opinion recorded in this AfD discussion. Process is important. This AfD discussion shows how difficult and unwieldly covering 64 articles in two states can become.

So, can some energetic editor make a single list for the eventual resolution of this AfD? --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. Right know is completely mess, mixture of article related to the church, the parish, the city and the state. I am opposed to the creation of one list for one state where we have items not related to each other. All the AfN should be removed. Each article should be reported separately in accordance with the rules applicable to enWiki such as notification of the author, provide substantive objections, etc.--WlaKom (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. Is the discussion about the churches in Connecticut, or USA or whole world? --WlaKom (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion of three Roman Catholic churches in New York City, and probably 60 more in the state of Connecticut. There are many more articles on Roman Catholic churches and Roman Catholic parishes in Connecticut and elsewhere in New England which are quite similar to the ones nominated in this AfD. I would only want a list of the particular articles being nominated for deletion, and no more. My request is to make some progress on cleaning up the complete mess this AfD has become. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD is about 64 articles (by Dthomsen8's count). When i expanded the AFD, i sought to include all articles that were similar. I searched all of a big category. I searched recent contributions by two editors Lucascb and James Russiello who had started or edited in the articles i found at first. It is true that there seems to be 48 articles in Massachusetts and some more in Connecticut that i did not find, mostly created by editor WlaKom. I apologize i did not at first find them all, so that all could be included in one efficient discussion. Dthomesen8, what do you want now: do you want now for the AFD to be expanded to include those, so that it addresses the entire set of U.S. catholic church parish articles that seem to lack assertion of notability and independent sources and so on? Or do you want for the AFD to remain fixed on these 64 articles? Personally i think this AFD set of articles is large enough to include a variety of types of articles and to enable good discussion and decisions to be made. Certainly the consensus of this AFD would apply to the other similar articles in future AFDs about them. --do ncr am 21:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect only the nominator knows what is exactly is intended to be included the list of items for deletion. There are many more articles than the items listed above that suffer from the same or even worse notability issues. As I mentioned previously, I am not sure exactly what the inclusion criteria are for being in this list or not. Does it include all insufficiently sourced church articles? only the ones in CT and NY? is it CT, NY, and MA only? Is it only the articles created by Lukascb? Is it only the articles renamed by me? I will not be able to help compile this list as I myself do not know which is supposed to be in the list. --Polaron | Talk 16:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list of included articles at (or near) the beginning of this AfD is still the list under discussion, although navigation in that list has been complicated by the insertion of comments in the list. All of those articles are tagged. No articles not listed there are included in this AfD. Repeating that list here would not make the closing administrators life any easier. As a participant, I've already identified the articles for which I !vote "keep" at least twice (due to requests from other participants).
If I were closing this AfD, I would be trying to find specific "keep" or "delete" (or "merge and redirect") votes for specific articles to see if there consensus exists on some of the individual articles. Unfortunately, few participants here are discussing the articles; most of the discussion is on whether WP:Notability is valid. --Orlady (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As is noted clearly above, i started by nominating one article for deletion to open discussion, and mentioned some other similar ones. Then Orlady added those 5 or 6 more to the AFD, including tagging their articles. I searched the Category of Bridgeport churches and added all of the ones that failed to establish notability. I meant at the time to include all articles into this AFD which are substantially the same, having been created by one or two editors, all lacking assertion of notability, and so on. It turns out later that there are more such articles, including 48 in Massachusetts and a number more in a Hartford category which i had not at first found, but i did not add those to the AFD. Whatever judgement found in this AFD on about 64 articles, should probably extend to those others, but they are not part of this AFD because notice of deletion has not been posted on their pages.

Is there any creator of articles covered in this AFD who is not aware of this AFD? I believe all creators and main editors of these articles are aware of this AFD. --do ncr am 20:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been improving some articles, and placing the Catholicism and Connecticut templates on talk pages, and also adding requests for photos. I suggested a single list in an effort to reduce what has clearly become a very messy AfD discussion. I suspect that there is consensus on keeping some of the individual Connecticut articles, and certainly the New York City articles. If I want to vote for, or against any particular article, how do I do that, without increasing the already messy and difficult to follow discussion above? --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think what would be helpful would be your identifying types of articles within this list, which could get different outcomes, and to explain your basis for different treatment than deletion for each type. I already agreed to identify a few that are cathedrals or basilicas (and any remaining NRHP-listed place but i don't think there are any) that seem more notable, and I would agree that the outcome should be Keep for those. All or almost all of the others were essentially the same, in my view, having no assertion of notability and no independent sources, so the initial proposal was to delete them all. Has any independent source been used to establish notability of a set of churches within this list? If so, perhaps that group could get a different treatment. Some commentators are just saying "Keep all" for invalid reasons, such as that the articles might be improved at some future date, if/when parishiners(sp?) who hold knowledge come forth and share their memories of the church, etc. Can you identify a subset of articles for which you have relevant, independent, valid sources to use in developing the articles? I for one would be amenable to holding off on deletion of a subset where an editor is in a position to develop the articles and requests time to do so.

One type of article might be ones that include a name of architect and a photo. Having a photo is good, but not sufficient in my view. Having a name of architect is not sufficient either. In most towns and cities, the names of architects would be obtainable for almost all commercial and religious buildings, no matter how lowly. However, there are many hundreds of thousands of commercial and religious buildings are not wikipedia-notable. Could you please identify some other types of article, using one or two examples to illustrate? --do ncr am 21:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The list of articles nominated for deletion is completely clear, I believe. Dthomsen is able to identify that there are exactly 64 of them. I presume that is the right count. It is all the articles named upfront, named using template:la, displaying with links to edit, talk, history, etc for each, which displays something like St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log) but with working links. All of the corresponding articles have been tagged with notice of this AFD. A few have been moved by participants in this discussion, sometimes after the editor was specifically requested not to move any of these articles, which complicates the discussion somewhat. I tried to update the list to name also the new name of article after it was moved, in cases i noticed. Perhaps some of the named articles now are redirects to where their articles were moved to, where i did not note the move. Please don't anyone move any more, until this AFD is concluded. I will comment later about closing this AFD, soon. About the specific request to list them again, I really do not think it is unclear which ones are listed. --do ncr am 20:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution on all New York ones

The AFD includes 61 Connecticut articles and 3 New York articles. On the 3 New York ones, Orlady proposed merger of SS. Cyril & Methodius' Church (New York City) and St. Raphael's Church (New York City) into SS. Cyril, Methodius, and Raphael's Church (New York City). Editor James Russiello agreed, and edited the third article already to serve as a merged article. The first two shall be changed to redirect to the third article. I agree with that resolution; i think all other editors here also agree. Other editors may note agreement or disagreement here. But a lot of votes are not needed. If there are not any objections stated here, I assume that redirection as proposed is the consensus. And this part of the AFD is done. --do ncr am 21:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, i missed that the New York ones under discussion include also Our Lady of Victory's Church (New York City). The comments above, including Orlady's agreeing that the article now has been developed and establishes notability adequately, are enough for me. So I would agree that should be Kept. If there are no objections, then again we would be done with the New York ones. --do ncr am 22:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, thank you for resolving the New York ones. I agree with the other editors, and thank all the editors who have contributed to the substantial improvements in the articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of the discussion related to main subject "St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)"

Removal of opinions against the AFD does not change the situation that this discussion violates the accepted rules on Wikipedia. The title of the discussion was "St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)" and the current discussion about anything and everything is meaningless. So I ask about the ending of this discussion and start it in the Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Catholicism--WlaKom (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained to you already, it is well within Wikipedia rules to discuss multiple articles in one AfD discussion. That you do not like it, does not mean it is not allowed. LadyofShalott 21:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LadyofShalott for your commenting here on process, and for your helpfully commenting on process several times elsewhere already. WlaKom should note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion gives guidelines for "How to list multiple related pages for deletion" which have been complied with.

About "removal of opinions against the AFD", I don't believe that any opinions have been removed by any editor in any way seeking to influence this AFD. Some comments by WlaKom and one long comment by Uzma Gamal were moved to the Talk page of this AFD, as part of separate discussions "About article naming only including Parish vs. Church" and "arbitration needed?", because those discussions seemed to be mainly not about the AFD itself. Since Uzma Gamal's comment actually included a general vote to keep all the articles (besides calling for arbitration), I will copy it or otherwise edit mention of Uzma Gamal's comment into the Other comments section of this AFD, so that the closing administrator cannot miss it. WlaKom, please clarify if you believe that any opinions have been lost by the editors who have been striving to keep this AFD discussion organized. Note also that this discussion section, too, may possibly be moved to the Talk page, because it is also mostly not about the AFD's content.

In this edit, I have given an expanded invitation at WikiProject Catholicism for members there to consider contributing to this AFD discussion. I gave warning that I personally believe this AFD will lead to many parish and church articles being deleted or redirected, with content moved to userspace or to Diocese-specific list-articles, and that another big AFD or two will follow to address 48 parish articles in Massachusetts and other church and parish articles, and that any following AFD will cite this one as precedent. So there is plenty of notice given to WikiProject Catholicism members that they should be interested in this AFD. --do ncr am 00:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Is this a joke? Do I need my attorney before I type here? Yes, I saw that, and I must say I cannot help chuckling at the legal-like tone of the "warning issued", and "please be informed about precedent" on the Catholicism talk page. This is so unlike Wikipedia - I feel I need my attorney present before I type here. As for opinions, in my view the only precedent set here is "absolute chaos". Who is going to read 60 articles in one go? Not me. And I do not see the votes for a mass deletion here, but there is so much chaos here that it is hard to see anything anyway. From what I see many people oppose mass executions. As for the statement "plenty of notice given" I see that closing started a few minutes after your warning notice. So none was given really. Let me just leave it there, for the only precedent I see here is chaos. Good bye. History2007 (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed i am surprised to see a "Closing in progress" note being added. Indeed i invited more discussion and was expecting for some time for that to take place. --do ncr am 02:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would you have me do

I've heard from the latest contributor to this discussion that I am do something (I'm not sure what) to help fix this mess. I'm willing to help out, but please remember, people, that I for one am not paid a plug nickel for all my efforts here. I do have an employer and he requires 50 hours of my time every week.

Furthermore I wouldn't have the slighest idea what I would be expected to do to fix this situation. If someone whats to advise me I will do what I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukascb (talk • contribs) 00:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: I and everyone else here, i believe, are also volunteers. --do ncr am 00:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what another contributor said to you, but I will try to comment on what can be done to resolve this situation. The problem has to do with short articles about individual churches that (1) did not cite any source other than the church/parish website (if one exists) and the diocese and (2) did not include any indication of what makes the church/parish important/noteworthy/interesting enough to be a topic for an encyclopedia.

The first of these items is an issue in relation to the Wikipedia general notability guideline, which says that for a topic to be included in Wikipedia, there needs to be evidence of substantial coverage of it by a reliable source independent of the topic. I hope you will agree that neither the church website nor the diocese is a source independent of the church. If you have access to other sources that have covered these individual churches, adding those other sources to the article as references could change the perception that these individual churches do not satisfy the general notabilty guideline.

The second of these items is an issue because of special notability guidelines, such as WP:ORG, that describe attributes to look for that are generally indicative of a notable topic. Many of the points in WP:ORG don't really apply to churches, but a relevant point on that page is the indication that an organization may be notable if it has factors that have "attracted widespread attention." That page also advises "Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs: Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." When I read these articles about individual churches (example: "St. Mark is a Roman Catholic church in Stratford, Connecticut, part of the Diocese of Bridgeport. St. Mark is located in Stratford's North End and was founded in 1960."), I cannot find any hint of factors that might attract the kind of interest and attention that would make the church individually notable. Furthermore, I've searched the Internet for additional information that might make some of these churches notable. In a couple of cases I found interesting items that I added to the article. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of them, if I found any possible indication of notability it was a story about a priest sex abuse scandal, which is not something we would want to add to the short articles about individual churches. If you have information about distinctive aspects of these churches that could be added to the articles, adding that information could change the perception that the churches are not notable.

IF, on the other hand, you believe that it is not possible to insert third-party sourced information that would help indicate that these churches are notable, I believe (others may not agree with me) that you could help conclude this discussion IF you would agree to incorporate the information about the parishes/churches to other articles of broader scope (that is, an article about the parent diocese or an article about the town or neighborhood where the church/parish is located) -- and allow the article titles to redirect to those broader articles. (Some of the individual articles still might be kept as "notable.")

This is a lot to digest, but please think about these different possible pathways to resolving this situation, and tell the rest of us what you can do. --Orlady (talk) 01:14, 31 January 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.