Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kovilthottam Church


 * 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. Ekabhishektalk 05:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Kovilthottam Church

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Contested PROD. —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   01:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete since no sources are provided. I would guess from what the article says, especially that the church was built in the 1700s, that the building is notable.  The article could be rewritten latter.  I also suspect that its name is different.  I have never heard of a church called: [Someplace] Church. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note that the prod was simply contested because the article had already been prodded and deprodded once; prodding it again is against procedure. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have added a source. It is clear from its age that this church is notable for historical reasons. It actually appears to be called St Andrew's Church, Kovilthottam, and the article therefore needs to be renamed on completion of the afd. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We now have a reference that supports a name of Saint Andrew's Parish Church, or if that becomes a disambiguation page, Saint Andrew's Parish Church (Kovilthottam).  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   05:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  14:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep -- if it were not for its age, I would not have wanted to keep it. It needs expanding to say soenting about the building's architecture and history.  It is only a stub.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Like Necrothesp, I have added another reference.--Rpclod (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The management of WP is strongly encouraging us to edit and improve monuments articles with the Summer of Monuments initiative. If the church dates from the 1700's, it's likely notable and would certainly be no question of its notability if this were in the US. Does the initiative not apply to India?.--Oakshade (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would just like to thank Jeff G. ツ for nominating this article. I think that, based on the article's initial condition, his nomination was appropriate.  His nomination and subsequent discussion resulted in Necrothesp and others improving the article such that it is now appropriate.  That seems to suggest that AfD offers a somewhat Darwinian benefit of evolutionary selection.--Rpclod (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   05:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Due to the verifiability of its age. SL93 (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep given the recent additions of verifiable reliable sources.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   05:31, 21 July 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.