Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monasterio de Tarlac


 * 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) 02:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Monasterio de Tarlac

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not sure about the notability of this congregation of 30 'monastic brothers' or 'fraters'. They have what is claimed to be a piece of the 'True Cross', but so do many other churches etc. Other than that claim, I can see nothing in the way of notability, but I can see a bit of possible advertising in the giving of the times for the services and in some of the wording. Peridon (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable religious landmark and tourist attraction. 1 2 3 4 5. Article can benefit from a little toning down on its organizational marketing.--RioHondo (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: "The reliquary is known to be the only one in the entire continent of Asia." --NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to be a significant pilgrimage site. .E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article has changed somewhat since I removed substantial copyright violations there, so editors might want to look at it again. If there are independent reliable sources that attest to the notability of the place, I suggest that they should be added to the article so that other editors can evaluate them. At a first glance, the five web pages cited by do not fulfill our criteria, but I'm open to discussion of that (yes, the Israelis have agreed to establish a farm there, for example; how does that make it notable?); the comment from  is lifted from visitmyphilippines.com, a tourism site that one might confidently expect to indulge in unfounded assertions of importance;  has cited a Google search as evidence of notability! (yes, really, a Google search!) Where is the in-depth coverage in independent sources? I'm not going to !vote for now, but as the page stands it is a no-brainer delete. If people want it kept I believe they should do some serious work on it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What I cite above is a google news search with links to news articles about the pilgrimage in reputable dailies, including Philippine Daily Inquirer. Multiple articles in reputable news media are an excellent indicator of notability. Sample articles:, . Certainly the article needs improvement. What else is new?  My point simply is that the annual pilgrimage, attended by a Bishop, in which the True Cross is venerated happens and is covered in reliable secondary sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fyi, that first website (It's more fun in the Philippines) is an official government tourism website by the Department of Tourism (Philippines). So if the Philippine national government through its tourism ministry thinks it is worthy to be included in its promotions (one of only 4 "things to do" for that province) then that should tell you all about its notability.--RioHondo (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It could also mean that they were desperate for things to put in there... ;-) Peridon (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Or this comment and nomination could be examples of WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS.--RioHondo (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for reminding us of systemic bias (I didn't actually need the reminder, but no matter). However, I think it is inappropriate to suggest that that is the motivation for this nomination. I suggest that the nomination was motivated by the failure of the article as it stands to demonstrate the notability of the topic. I note that although people are happy to tell us how important it is, no-one has actually done anything to fix that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if I'm being accused of bias against the Philippines, monasteries or the so called True Cross. I have grave doubts about the last, but it is notable whether 'True' or not. I an biassed against advertising on Wikipedia. I personally would not prefer better than a tourist promotion as a source of notability, whatever the origin of the promotion. Peridon (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Unintended word left over from change of wording (before saving) removed. Peridon (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. The same promotion published in the major dailies Manila Bulletin, Philippine Daily Inquirer and Philippine Star as pointed out by another user up there. Between you and the government you derided as being desperate, I think anyone can tell who is more credible.--RioHondo (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * While there may or may not be systemic bias against topics of interest to pious Christians in non-English-speaking, less-developed countries, I think that this is a simple case of the Nom and subsequent editor not having found sources, although IMHO sufficient sources do exist. This is a common situation at AFD; it often takes an editor with knowledge of an area to locate sources.  What I want to remind Justlettersandnumbers of is that the quesiton at AFD is not how good an article is, the question at AFD is  whether the article topic is notable.  I personally spend considerable time and effort improving articles that I happen on at AFD.  But sometimes I just look to see if adequate sourcing exists in the world.  Editors weighing in at AFD are not required to rewrite or source the articles they weigh for notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not being one who reveres governments and politicians, I'm no more against or pro the Philippine Govt than I am any other. My meaning was that the particular province might have very little in the way of tourist attractions to be put in, so they were scraping the bottom of the barrel. There are places like that: Widnes for one (albeit not a province). The mention of only four things for the province (including this subject) may speak volumes - unless the tourist authority are missing things. Possibly the ecotourism park might help the notability of the monastery. Up to you. I usually bring things to AfD for confirmation of a non-blatant hoax, or with the hope that someone will do what hasn't been done and turn an article around. If you've got good WP:RS references, add them. Don't just mention them in passing here. Prove me wrong. I'll be happier than I will be if this is deleted. Peridon (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Poor articles should be tagged, not brought to AFD, see: WP:BEFORE. Here's what News5 says about the pilgrimage to Tarlac Monastery:,  , I linked to articles in other major Philippine media above.  It's time to drop this endless back-and-forth, and keep the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing up this important guideline pertinent to this discussion, which of all people here, an admin failed to realize. Calling a country's government desperate can only mean two things, you are simply biased against governments in general which I can probably accept if you are from around here, or you are biased against the people and nation that that particular government represents, which is more likely coming from someone not from this country. And since this is a discussion on a country's tourist attraction being questioned, it can be interpreted as a country having desperate heritage attractions. You have got to be careful with what you say, especially if you are an admin.--RioHondo (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep but tag for improvement. I assume that this is not a hoax.  If it is a visitor attraction that people go to, we should probably keep it.  Personally I do not believe in the relic (but I do not know).  Alternatively could we merge to the ecopark?  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I decided not to ping you in case I got accused of canvassing... I'll happily withdraw the nom if someone will add a better ref or two to the article. IMO it isn't a hoax. I don't think there is an article about the ecopark - all I can find is San Jose, Tarlac which mentions both the monastery and the ecopark. Peridon (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2015 (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.