Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horomayri Monastery


 * 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Horomayri Monastery

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:NOTE. Lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Article is sourced and though stubby, has tremendous potential for expansion. Long standing religious institutions are inherently notable.--TM 22:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I added some English sources. I think the Russian is something like Монастырь Оромайри, but that must be wrong because it gets no hits in Google Books. Armenian Հոռոմայրի վանք gets a fair number of hits on a general search - wish I knew what they meant. Nothing in Books, but that is just Google systemic bias. Anyway, for the same reasons given in the AfD for the similarly nominated Makravank Monastery, this seems frivolous - a waste of everyone's time. How can a place like this not be notable? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Horomayri is the transliteration of Հոռոմայրի and վանք is translated as monastery. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 01:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So Հոռոմայրի վանք is the correct search term - and does show various Google hits. Books would be better, but Google does not seem interested in scanning and indexing books in Armenian. Perhaps sadly, Russian seems a more likely language to find online sources discussing the monastery. There are more than enough already, even in English, to establish notability. But the place clearly has a long and interesting history, and there is every reason to suppose that there are many good sources, just not a lot online. If you have access to sources that give more information, please expand the article, with citations. Sources do not have to be in English. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: I have visited the monastery in person and I have no doubt that it is notable. However because it is not included in main touristic routs (one needs to hike to get there), there is little online coverage of the monastery. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 01:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources do not have to be online, they just have to be reliable and independent. Somewhere there is a section of a history book, or a book about the church, or about the Mkhargrdzeli, or even a guidebook by a local authority that tells more about the structures and their history. There is obviously enough here already to establish notability - that is not in doubt. But the article would be a lot better if it had more information. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I see the monastery is old (possible historic importance) and was built by some Zakarid-Mkhargrzeli noble family (from the aticle), which has an article. -RobertMel (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. More sources are always better, but this seems a reasonable wikipedia entry. Would like to see someone extract some native language sources. I also tend to err on the side of inclusion for articles that are not spam or self-promoting and this appears to be neither. -Quartermaster (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Aymatth2. Sardur (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Meets guidelines. ‡ Himalayan ‡  ΨMonastery 15:49, 26 February 2010 (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.