Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annunciation of the Virgin Mary, Greek Orthodox Church


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 10:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Annunciation of the Virgin Mary, Greek Orthodox Church
This is a non-notable individual Church location. The 19 unique search results do nothing to augment notability. Erechtheus 01:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep,It's my church and it's notable to me! wikipedia is an encyclopedia so you should be able to look all things up. The AOL dictionary describes an encyclopedia as "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject." It says all branches of knowledge. is an individual church that much of a problem? I think not. this article is a way to show people what the story is on this church. Numerous times i drive past churches and want to know more, like wow thats a nice looking church, when was it built or Melkite? whats that? By having an individual church article, people can see what this church is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidlum (talk • contribs)
 * There is a difference between what people want to know and what people do know. This is an encyclopaedia of what people do know.  We have plenty of articles about churches.  But they are churches that are already documented.  Witness Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica, for example. Wikipedia is for documenting the existing corpus of human knowledge, not for adding new knowledge to it.  To show that Wikipedia may have an article on this church, please cite the books and articles that have been written about its history, architecture, and so forth. Uncle G 18:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If the church is notable in the town, it should be included, am I right? -Patstuart 02:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Do not be offended if someone says it not notable. Notability has a specific criteria on wikipedia and is not meant to denigrate its worth to you or your community, BUT is it notable to the general usership of wikipedia? I'm afraid not, just as high schools articles are generally being deleted. I concur with that practice as wikipedia is not a meant to contain unencyclopediac information. Green hornet 03:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. respectfully - I'm with Mr Hornet on this one. I understand Mr Kidlum's reading of the encyclopedia entry but there has to be some sort of editorial sifting to separate what is important for the world to read and what is not. I could be persuaded however if some architectural notablility was established - pictures would help. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn church. Eusebeus 09:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It may make sense for information on the church to be included, but probably not in its own article. Merge  the most relevant bits with Woburn, Massachusetts, which probably could use the content.  JYolkowski // talk 13:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How would i go about merging the content with Woburn, Massachusetts. Do i just make a new heading or section, there's a lot of info on the church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidlum (talk • contribs)
 * If the resolution is merge, a mention of the Church would be appropriate. The details would not be appropriate. Erechtheus 17:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If someone finds an outside source to cite, then details would be appropriate. - Lex 18:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Some details would be appropriate. The level of detail the present article includes would be wholly inappropriate. Erechtheus 18:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course. Sorry I didn't specify. - Lex 18:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete parishcruft. Carlossuarez46 17:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete My church is notable to me too, but I can't see any reason to have an article on it. Shadow1  (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * DeleteFrom the article, this sounds like a fine church. But to have an article here a church should have some objective notability, such as recognition for excellence in some aspect by its church denomination or by newspapers of general circulation, or some historical importance. This church may have such notability, but there are no references to other than church websites. Please note that I have started a discussion topic at Wikipedia talk:Notability to create a standard for notability of churches.    We have a standard for schools, so why not for churches. Edison 23:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no claim to notability, Sandstein 07:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The church has been featured in the "Orthodox Observer" newspaper and is often in the Woburn papers. There have been several articles like when the church's greek school met with the mayor and when the church had a greek food booth at Woburn's holiday festival. Also there are articles in the nationally printed "Hellenic Voice" about its building addition, which is going forward after decades of planning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidlum (talk • contribs)

Keep Yea, but in other encyclopedias the readers don't get to choose whats in it. Some random people make the choices and whos to say they're right. The reason you have so many articles up for deletion is because the readers finally have a choice to add articles, yet others are trying to take out these individuals' hard work because THEY don't like it. It's up to actual readers of the encyclopedia, not its editors who probably don't even use it like normal people. Also most of these "delete" people sound like a computer has written their responses and not normal encyclopedia readers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidlum (talk • contribs)
 * My Aunt Mable met the mayor last year - it was in the local paper - I'm still not sure she should have an article in wikipedia - despite runnign the local bingo and doing a lot of work for charity - same applies to this church in my humble opinion.--Mcginnly | Natter 20:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as the article uses no independent sourcing as would be required to have an article adhering to WP:NPOV without violating WP:NOR. GRBerry 02:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are there any guidelines as to the notability of churches? I take a look at Category:Churches in Russia and discovered such entries as Saint Michaels Church and Church of Our Savior Not Made by Hands in Serpukhov. When previously discussed by Russian wikipedians, I was told that every church is de facto notable and every school is. I would like some flashlight on the issue, if possible. -- Ghirla -трёп-  13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Response comment Thus far we haven't been forced to codify anything about houses of worship.  Very few churches are notable.  Structures may be architecturally notable as a building.  Congregations may be notable for their impact or influence.  The best evidence of such notability in either case is that independent reliable sources (not the congregation, the diocese, the denomination, etc...) have chosen to write material about them.
 * The "all X are notable" is rejected for most subjects X - countries, nobel prize winners, and heads of state are the sorts of things where it is accepted; either because the subject indicates that someone else has determined notability (nobel prize winners) or because of their worldwide importance (countries, heads of state). My test for the "all X are notable" argument is "are we an incomplete encyclopedia because we lack an article on the least important X ever to have existed that could still be documented from reliable sources".  For local items like schools and churches, we aren't incomplete because we lack an article on a school or church that existed for a few years in a now ghost town that was around for a few years during a mining boom or was open in a temporary refugee camp.  We can be a complete encyclopedia, even one that is not paper, while not having articles on lots and lots of schools or churches.  Go look at another encyclopedia and see how many schools/churches they cover.  GRBerry 16:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please try to assume good faith. Whisp e ring(talk/c) 19:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * comment I wasn't trying to be mean I'm just saying that sometimes the editors and such care more about what fits than what people want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidlum (talk • contribs)


 * 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.