Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Cross Church, Braga


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Holy Cross Church, Braga

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced one-sentence article about a Portuguese church that has not been the subject of anything other than perhaps travel guides. Redirect to a list of Portuguese churches could be an alternative if anyone objects to outright deletion. KDS 4444 Talk  13:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 *  delete  I'm not seeing anything that makes a claim to notability other than tourist guides, nor anything at all that could be used to write anything beyond a stub. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I too looked this church up under its Portuguese name, and I accept the notion that, due to its age, it stands a high probability of being notable on that count alone. But I'm not seeing the sourcing, so for now, reserving judgement. Mangoe (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. A 17th century church is clearly going to be a significant heritage building, especially a Baroque church with that level of decoration. If this was in the UK or the USA we'd almost certainly keep it without a second thought. Any church of that age and appearance can most certainly be expanded beyond a stub, so that claim is a non-starter (did either contributor so far even bother to check the article on Portuguese Wikipedia? That's considerably more than a stub). And if it's in a travel guide then it is likely to be notable in any case. Travel guides don't tend to list non-notable buildings; they list sites that tourists are likely to want to see. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Travel guides often contain indiscriminate lists of places that anyone might want to see (including long lists of restaurants and bars and hotels); in many such guides, the listings are paid for. By this logic, any structure that anyone has paid to have mentioned in a travel guide becomes ipso facto worthy of a Wikipedia entry, which I hope we can all agree should not be the case (?).  See WP:NOTGUIDE.  More than this, I am not convinced that a 17th century church building is de facto notable no matter where it is located.  I want to see verifiable evidence of notability, not evidence of its mere existence nor a conjecture of its likely notability simply because of its age (see WP:MUST): there are rock circles in the Sierra Madre Mountains of California/ Nevada that used to be human dwellings and which are often several thousand years old-- none of them individually is worthy of a Wikipedia entry because none of them has received more than trivial coverage in published sources. See WP:ITEXISTS.  The Portuguese Wikipedia article may have something interesting in it-- I do not speak Portuguese, and I suspect that going there and typing "Holy Cross Church, Braga" will not take me where I would want to go (and even if it did, other Wikipedias sometimes have very different standards for what constitutes a reliable secondary source).  Could you provide a link so that others can verify what is there?  That would much more helpful than just asserting the building's significance.  Thanks!  KDS 4444  Talk  21:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't be obtuse. I was clearly referring to tourist attractions and not restaurants, bars and hotels. I was also referring to reliable, published travel guides, not random collections of information on the internet. To put this into perspective, in England we list historic buildings with a Grade I, II* or II rating. On Wikipedia it is customary to have articles on all Grade I and II* listed buildings (none have ever been deleted to my knowledge). This church would undoubtedly be listed Grade I if it was in England. Is there any reason to discriminate against buildings in non-English-speaking countries? As to Portuguese Wikipedia, the article is linked from the English article. If you're not familiar enough with Wikipedia to realise this, then maybe you should familiarise yourself with the way we do things before you start nominating articles for deletion? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have now been to the Portuguese article. Thank you for so politely pointing it out to me as I do not regularly find myself needing to access articles in foreign languages.  No doubt you followed the link yourself and were able to see that even the article in Portuguese included no references.  None.  I have asked for someone-- anyone-- to provide evidence of this building's notability, and so far no one has done it.  I nominated it because I saw no references and could find none on my own.  An article containing no references and for which I could find no references and for which no one else has so far been able to find any references to me signals at least a consideration for deletion.  I do not understand why you must respond to such a reasonable act with such smug vitriol.  It is unwarranted and unnecessary and deeply uncivil.  KDS 4444  Talk  20:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but where's the "smug vitriol"? My point was merely that if you aren't familiar enough with Wikipedia to do even the most basic checks (such as following links on the article page to articles on other versions of Wikipedia that may have more information) then why on earth are you nominating articles that others have put effort into creating for deletion? This is not an unreasonable point and I am not the only editor to have made it. Do you have any familiarity with architecture or with Wikipedia articles on architecture? If you did, I think you may have realised that this is clearly a notable building by virtue of its existence alone, with or without references. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - considering age of the church its pretty sure that sources exists in Portugese. Also google book search gives quite a few hits for Portugese name .--Staberinde (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article needs more information, now it's just a stub, but is one of the most important churches in the city. Joseolgon (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- The Portuguese WP article consists of an architectural description of the building, an interesting one, but not necessarily all that remarkable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Needs expanding, Not deleting. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  20:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. As noted by others, this church shows up in multiple travel sites as one of the notable sights in the city of Braga; it's not the most notable church in town, but notable enough.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nom pretty much admits to not doing a WP:BEFORE check (not even checking the Portuguese article, which can be found conveniently from the languages menu). As noted by Staberinde, a Google search for "Church of Santa Cruz" finds numerous book hits, going back to the 1800s. Many sources exist, both in English and Portuguese, on the various architectural and artistic features of the church. -- 101.117.31.62 (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2014 (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.