Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paróquia Nossa Senhora do Bom Conselho

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paróquia Nossa Senhora do Bom Conselho

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

Does not make any assertion of notability, nor does it cite any sources. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individual parishes are generally non-notable per WP:ORG, and this one has no sources cited in this article. As a remote second choice, redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of São Paulo. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I stuck in some information on the church and the parish from church sites. A search turns up a fair amount of other material about the appointments, festivals, fundraising events and so on that would be expected with a sizable and active parish organization. I suppose some of it could be added to demonstrate notability, although to me that would just be clutter. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Superb expansion which demonstrates notability. "this one has no sources cited" is not a criteria for deletion, "no sources exist" on the otherhand would be.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - Actually, the reason for my nomination was "Does not make any assertion of notability", the lack of cited sources was a follow up comment. Beyond that, the AfD process encourages interested parties to expand, which is exactly what happened. The article is now much better than it was, and properly sourced. Win/Win ReformedArsenal (talk)
  - The way that an article asserts notability under the general notability guideline is to cite sources, so they amount to the same thing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability though isn't decided with how many sources or how long the article as it stands is, but actual coverage in reliable sources and what sources actually exist outside of wikipedia which AFD nominators should check before AFDing. Notable subjects will always be notable, however short, if there is coverage in reliable sources then they're notable, sub stub or not. Yes, the article should have "asserted notability" and have been sourced, but it is up to the nominator to try to ensure that it isn't notable before nominating in the same way it should be up to the article nominator to ensure that it is sourced and asserts notability. Most churches in the UK meet content guidelines, don't know why a church in a major city in South America wouldn't. 99.5% of my articles end up being kept for a reason. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure from the indentation who the previous comment was addressed to. If it was to me, then I'd like to clarify that my comment was about the loose use of the phrase "assertion of notability" which I see bandied about in AfD discussions but has no real meaning in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We don't require an article to explicitly say "this topic is notable" or "this topic has been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources". As Dr. Blofeld says, notability-based AfD discussions are about whether the topic is notable, not about any "assertions" in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, and yes, the idea that every article should say "This church is notable because" is silly. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the article should make some explanation of why we care about it enough to include it in Wikipedia. "This building exists at this location" is simply not sufficient... ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'd all agree on that, but again you're confusing lack of content with lack of notability. Most articles taken to AFD are sourceable and can just be expanded, AFD isn't a demand service, evenif it's probably the most effective way to get people to expand an article!. As it turns out, this church gets some 1500 people in attendance, which puts it on par with some of the big churches in London.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 23:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have been well-expanded. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is a well-written article, but I am not convinced that the church described is still not WP:NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why, because it's Brazil not Worcestershire? Why wouldn't a church attended by 1500 people for mass be notable eh?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[North Heights Lutheran Church] has a Sunday attendance of nearly 6000 people... but it doesn't have an Article. It's former head pastor Morris George Cornell Vaagenes does. I wasn't aware that number of parishioners was a criteria for notability. That being said, I think that the expansion and sourcing of this article places it well within the bounds of WP:NN. It's weekly attendance, however, is not what put it there. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is sources which demonstrate notability, but one look at the building and its weekly attendance makes it common sense that it is well within requirements. Not sure why you haven't withdrawn this nomination, it doesn't stand a chance of being deleted.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You in one sentence agree with me that the number of parishioners is not what puts it in the realm of notability... but then appeal to its weekly attendance as your support. Logic Fail. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, there are a lot of things in life where logic is questionable... I don't go around insulting other editors for their beliefs and arguments though. IN this case not so much logic as common sense that it meets requirements. You've lost your case here anyway, you're wasting time with this. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequately supported by numerous reliable secondary sources: why is this still even being considered? - SchroCat (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage to merit notability under WP:GEOFEAT. Mkdw ^talk 07:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no good reason why individual parishes should be deemed to be notable. Its church is not an historic building (and even if the church is deemed notable there's no reason why the parish should be and the article should be renamed for the church). It's just a minor local organisation with no more notability than any other minor local organisation and all its coverage is what you'd expect of a minor local organisation from minor local sources. And despite the snide comments above, the fact it's in Brazil is irrelevant. Most English parishes aren't notable either and neither are most English churches built in the 1970s. Unless they have something really notable about them architecturally or otherwise, most churches built in modern times are non-notable. They might be in the future when they get acknowledged as historic buildings, but not yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from a structural point of view. However, your arguments if looking at this under WP:ORG as a small local organization is quite misleading. The Roman Catholic Church is statistically the largest organized religion in the world, and not some small local organization. The church is legally the owner, operator, and executive of this parish. We're not talking about a smaller independent off-shoot religion. This is the Roman Catholic Church. Because it is part of a regional administration (diocese) does not mean it is not the Roman Catholic Church. It very much is so and any argument otherwise is not correct in any legal or common sense. Mkdw ^talk 06:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. The Roman Catholic Church is notable. Its dioceses are inherently notable. Its parishes, however, are not inherently notable. Your argument is like saying the U.S. Army is notable so all its units, even those as small as platoons and squads, are also inherently notable, or that the Royal British Legion is notable, so all its local branches are too. We long ago determined that this is not the case on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I was aware of WP:ORG#Local units of larger organizations. When you said, "just a minor local organisation" I took it to mean "only a minor local organization" (up to and nothing more) in which I wanted to simply point out that it was misleading -- and not that it was an argumentative point for notability or lack thereof. Mkdw ^talk 11:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that 'Paroquia' or parish should be taken out of the name. Furthermore, this may have confused some of the editors trying to find sources related to the building. While not historic or heritage, I do feel the building asserts a social notability outlined in WP:GEOFEAT. There are independent and reliable sources for the building: [1], [2], and [3] in addition to the ones already in the article. Mkdw ^talk 11:30, 30 January 2013 (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.