Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of the Holy Archangels, Bălți


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Church of the Holy Archangels, Bălți

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A couple of new (post-2000) parish churches; no discernible architectural, historical or societal claim to notability; no more than routine coverage. No particular reason to have these two around. - Biruitorul Talk 05:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page:

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep both as they seem to be notable buildings having good references to support a claim of notability and therefore passing WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I find your justification quite weak. Allow me to explain.
 * While we don't have a specific guideline for notability of buildings, I can think of a few things (aside from GNG) that would establish a building as notable: its age, its listing in a history registry, its design by a notable architect, its having hosted notable events, its special attributes (great height, unusual design, etc). With regard to a Roman Catholic church, a cathedral would generally be notable, a parish church not, unless some of these other criteria were met. It so happens none of them are.
 * As to the sources, for Bălți we have two dead links to the local Catholic diocese, a link to a non-existent page on ro.wiki, raw video footage from a Catholic news service and passing mention in a church newsletter. In addition to being unquotable, these sources also happen not to be independent.
 * For Tiraspol, we have two Catholic database entries and followed by five book pages that don't even talk about the church but about the status of Transnistria and of the Chișinău diocese.
 * So, er, how exactly do these pass GNG again? Just where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Because I am certainly not seeing it. - Biruitorul Talk 22:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no Notability (churches) (proposed guideline did not pass. Neither did Notability (architecture) nor Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks). What's left is WP:GEOFEAT: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." and given I do not see any entry for churches at Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, that's all we have to go on outside of broader WP:N. And in light of that, I would agree with Biruitorul. The sources here are very weak, inclusion on some list of churches/buildings, and passing mentions in very local, very niche sources that don't seem particularly reliable. It's one thing if a church is a historical building (monument). But outside that, unless there's some proper coverage per N, this fails at being encyclopedic. Ping me if there are any new arguments for me to consider. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- While I would love us to be able to have articles in WP on every parish church. The consensus has been that they are generally NN.  There is nothing in these articles to indicate that there is anything out of the ordinary about them; where there is, we usually keep the article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2016 (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.