Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Rocco, Marsico Nuovo

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 delete. Consensus is there isn't sourcing to verify notability and we can't presume GEOFEAT without sourcing. If someone wants this to contemplate a merge, ping me. No need to go through REFUND Star Mississippi 03:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

San Rocco, Marsico Nuovo

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I found no significant coverage for this church. SL93 (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I have seen prods removed on similar articles with comments such as "clearly notable". "Old church" does not automatically equal notable. On top of it, this church is in a small Italian town of around 4,000 people which makes it less likely to have coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the it.wiki name varies slightly, which leads back to a similar article San Rocco, Potenza that has interwiki links while this one does not. I suspect that if it really is this old, then yes, it should be notable, but I'm not sure how much the it.wiki sources help. Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On further comparison, it's likely these are separate buildings. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was thrown off by the fact that there isn't at least an Italian Wikipedia article. I've been reading church articles and they typically do have an article elsewhere. I agree that old typically means notable, but I'm not willing to assume in this case. SL93 (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Marsico Nuovo. From what we have at present this is a NN church that happens to be mentioned in a tourist guide for having a painting by (presumably) a NN article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cannot imagine any circumstances under which a 17th century building would not be notable. I cannot find an online heritage list for Basilicata, but I am sure it would meet WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't sure with no verifiability. SL93 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete I found a couple of pictures of the front, and none of the interior; it is a gabled, stuccoed box of no architectural distinction. That's all I got besides what our article already says. One indeed would think that its age would have attracted more attention, but so far, apparently not. Mangoe (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:57, 9 January 2022 (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.