Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apparition of Our Lady at Batim


 * 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   merge to Marian apparition.  Sandstein  05:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparition of Our Lady at Batim

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Aside from the tremendous bias in the article, this just doesn't seem sufficiently notable to warrant a page. JoelWhy (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. In addition to the Times of India article, I found this book mention. There is also this book, but it looks like it is probably connected with the subject in some way. The first two of these are probably just about enough to keep the article, but I would be happier about keeping it if there were more references. As it is, I would also not mind a merge to Marian apparition. Whatever we do, though, we will need to remove most of the content to solve the point-of-view problems. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 18:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Marian apparition or some other similar target. It's a little short on notability - not drastically so - but it's practically impossible to maintain neutrality across lots of little stubs on subjects like this. I applaud the recent edits that have fixed most of the initial neutrality problems, but left unsupervised the problem will surely return. bobrayner (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. Do not Merge; as can be seen in 'Marian apparition', even apparitions with Church approval do not have articles. Consensus will need to change before apparitions that have not received such can be given articles. Discussion could be initiated with a WP:RFC at 'Marian apparition'. Anarchangel (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * None of the above is a reason not to merge, as the Marian apparition article already covers many unapproved apparitions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge It's referenced but not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested; no harm will be done. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.