Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of St. Elizabeth of Hungary in Łódź


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Church of St. Elizabeth of Hungary in Łódź

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. While well-written, nothing to indicate the notability of this church building, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage about the building to pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Regretful delete - Nothing showed up in my WP:BEFORE. Weak keep per sources found below. FOARP (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep There's a discussion on the article's talk page but the nominator did not participate but instead just rushed to slap deletion templates on the article, contrary to WP:ATD, WP:BITE, WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. The main difficulty with the place is that it's in Poland and so will be mainly covered in Polish-language sources.  There's a linked article on the Polish-language Wikipedia.  That contains a source and I'm inclined to follow their lead.  The worst case would be merger into some page about Łódź as that main article currently doesn't seem to say anything about its churches. Andrew D. (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This is fairly obviously in large part a machine translation of the Polish Wikipedia's pl:Kościół i klasztor św. Elżbiety Węgierskiej w Łodzi and there is a source cited at pl:Kościół i klasztor św. Elżbiety Węgierskiej w Łodzi, which the translator did not copy over for some reason. So did either of the people who turned up no sources look at the one cited?  And did anyone else think to look for the name in Polish?  I put in the name of the church and the name of the architect and started turning up things like articles in Wyborcza about making this a registered monument so its owners cannot redesign and rebuild the roof, as they want to (explaining the scaffolding in the photograph).  So it seems to be the case that a more thorough search for sources and evaluation of the ones that we already have is needed.  That said, this is quite a bad machine translation, whose English is broken and downright gibberish in places.  Uncle G (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried using the Polish name (which seems quite different) but don't have any fluency in the language and so couldn't make much sense of the results. Andrew D. (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Polish page has two links both of which aren't independent RS's. The remaining reference is Klasztory bernardyńskie, pod red. H.E. Wyczawskiego, Kalwaria Zebrzydowska 1985, which I am not able to consult to see if it is WP:SIGCOV but in any event is not enough, by itself, to sustain notability. FOARP (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's actually Klasztory bernardyńskie w Polsce w jej granicach historycznych by Hieronim Eugeniusz Wyczawski, a 681 page book on Franciscan monasteries in Poland. It seems worth checking.  Uncle G (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Yes, it's not the largest or oldest church in Łódź but with couple of additional sources it could be a decent stub.--Darwinek (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - So what you are actually saying is that it doesn't meet notability criteria, but it could at some point in the future, with good references which have been searched for but not found? Onel 5969  TT me 00:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that is saying the place is in fact Wikipedia notable, which I agree with based on considerable evidence above that documentation about the place exists. It does not matter that we do not have Polish-speaking editors and we do not currently have the sources available online.  We do not need those;  it is reasonable to judge that sources exist. --Doncram (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, per my response just above to Onel5969, informed by multiple comments above establishing that sources most probably do exist. Also, you cannot force other editors to improve the article immediately to your satisfaction;  it is established well enough that the article could be improved, and that is all that matters. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If editors are convinced it exists then I say Keep. There are other Church(es) of St. Elizabeth of Hungary in other locales, so I will accept the source in this article. Here is another more far flung parish - in Farmville, North Carolina, USA (believe it or not) - - (found it on a web search). It seems she gets around. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - so the new standard, based upon ZERO WP policies, is that if something exists, it passes notability criteria. Wow. Bravo.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. If we believe that a place is notable, including that there exists significant coverage about it, whether one uninformed editor has found that coverage, or can read the language, or can comprehend it, or not, then we Keep the article.  That is per Wikipedia policies and guidelines and principles, and no fake outrage changes that. --Doncram (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's an argument which shouldn't be used in AfD discussions, "comments above establishing that sources most probably do exist" - see WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Simply existing does not meet WP:SIGCOV. There are literally thousands of churches which exist, but which are not notable. --comment by Onel5969 (?)
 * Rubbish rubbish. What you link to is an essay, or in fact a summary conclusion from full essay But there must be sources!, and we are not bound by it. That essay is about moronic level unsupported/uninformed/likely-wrong assertions that sources must exist.  Here, it is appropriate to assert, with good reason, that there exists adequate coverage.  And you are just wrong to assert that an article must be deleted because you don't like its current state. --Doncram (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Notability (churches) was a failed proposal so we just have the short paragraph at WP:NCHURCH and the general WP:GNG to fall on with. My GBooks and Gscholar search for ""św. Elżbiety w Łodzi" did not yield any hits, ditto for "św. Elżbiety Węgierskiej w Łodzi" outside a mention in passing in one academic paper . But there are some other sources, ex. recently a discussion in local media (Lodz is however a major city in Poland...) about controversy relating to redesiging of the church . The other content of the article is probably not WP:OR but WP:SPS as it can be referenced to webpages of the church itself, etc. I couldn't find anything about the building being declared a zabytek (Polish heritage list). I am in general an inclusionist but given the near total lack of sources about this building I could find, and it not being a historical monument (yet...?) it's a tough choice. PS. I nominated this for deletion on pl wiki pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2019:07:01:Kościół i klasztor św. Elżbiety Węgierskiej w Łodzi. Now, pl wiki is very inclusionist so it will probably end in 'all churches are notable, keep', but maybe someone can find sources that would be relevant to us. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wiesław Lisowski was one of the best Łódź pre-WWII architects. Xx236 (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable interwar Modernist church. No reason whatsoever for deletion. Significant public buildings generally have a very low threshold for notability, especially those that are architecturally striking as this is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't we need at least some evidence of WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources? Preferably more than one? FOARP (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do. The fact that the architect may be notable is irrelevant since notability is not inherited. Saying a church is a notable interwar Mondernist, without providing sources to show that's an accurate statement isn't really a valid argument either. And the most prevalent argument here is "there must be valid sources, but we simply can't find them" (my paraphrase of several positions, not an actual quote), is not a valid argument either, as per WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Onel 5969  TT me 19:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that "MUSTBESOURCES" is a summary conclusion from full essay But there must be sources!, which is about cases where there really is no evidence or reason to believe sources do exist. Here, we believe that the church exists, is historic, has coverage in Polish language and other, and User:Onel5969 is basically just saying wp:IDONTLIKEIT and trying to force cleanup, but wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's as much a matter of inheritance as it is a matter of transference. If my house had been designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, it would have been notable. "Inheritance" is a different matter--once upon a time Wayne Greenhaw lived in the house I live in, but that doesn't make it notable. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Many Polish Modernist buildings were destroied during WWII, so survivors are valuable.Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.