Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Holy Rosary Parish (Padre Garcia)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  12:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Most Holy Rosary Church (Padre Garcia)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not notable under WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. Historical significance (as mentioned in the deprod edit summary by User:Necrothesp) needs to be demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources. The coverage that I could find on this church did not extend beyond trivial database entries. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Philippines. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. Necrothesp's contesting of a PROD without giving any evidence as to the notability of the church and with a basis of "historic church, poor article" leaves a poor impression, in my opinion. JML1148 ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You and the nominator clearly misunderstand the usage of WP:PROD, which is only for uncontroversial deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is an issue of misusing PROD; I didn't reasonably expect anyone to object to deletion of this article. The fact that someone did object doesn't indicate anything wrong per se. I think JML1148 would have preferred more detailed reasoning for the objection, which is always nice. But of course PROD can be objected to for any reason or without reason, nobody is contesting that. It says that quite explicitly in multiple places. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a very similar line of reasoning. I was not expecting the PROD to be contested, and I was expecting a more detailed policy-based explaination when the PROD was removed. JML1148 ( talk &#124; contribs ) 07:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Prodding is increasingly overused for articles that should be taken to AfD. Only blatant rubbish should be prodded, not articles on historic buildings and the like. It's not a way to get round taking articles to a proper AfD discussion. It's for articles on topics that aren't worth our time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. It is a Classified Historic Structure of the Philippines, as a look at the official cultural heritage map will establish. And that is precisely why one should not assume the deletion of articles about historic buildings is uncontroversial and why they should therefore never be prodded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This structure is not "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level", as set out by WP:GEOFEAT. It is a classified historic structure, just like (quote from link above): "all [other] Colonial Churches and other Houses of Worship". This is not one of the categories listed in the guideline that Necrothesp refers to, nor is it a "protected status on a national level" for the purposes of this guideline. All this classification means is that it's recognised as a house of worship or colonial church, it does not imply significance or protection (as far as I can tell).
 * There is also a second requirement of that WP:GEOFEAT criterion: "for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available". There doesn't seem to be any such information, neither here in the discussion nor in the current version of the article. The map Necrothesp linked to only lists its location and the legal basis of classification.
 * For these two (distinct) reasons, GEOFEAT doesn't apply to this church. I agree that articles about historic buildings are important and should usually not be proposed for deletion, but nothing here establishes the historic significance of the church, and I don't think that every church has inherent historic significance. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You've explained it better then I ever could have. In addition, if the church was to be a site of "cultural heritage or national heritage", it could be argued that it still fails WP:GEOFEAT due to a combination of the second part (I could not find anything about the church besides basic statistics) and the fact that the church only has a heritage listing because it is lumped in with all other colonial churches. JML1148 ( talk &#124; contribs ) 07:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added two sources to the article that provide far more than basic statistics. And it clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT, despite the efforts to claim it does not. As would most other 18th century churches in most other countries with proper heritage listing. I am frankly mystified why there is such enthusiasm from a couple of editors to delete this article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the source additions. IMO the second source seems to be basic statistics. The first source has a good amount of information, however it is an official website. I think Actualcpscm has done a very good job at explaining that it is recognised as a historic structure, but is not classified as cultural or national heritage. JML1148 ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment When I closed this as no consensus, I didn't realize the date of the second relist, reopening for the intended week. Note, it's now at Most Holy Rosary Church (Padre Garcia) per 's move, which I think is fine and doesn't need to be undone for this discussion to continue. If others feel differently, feel free Star   Mississippi  19:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - this is not an old building. It's locally protected, not nationally protected so it fails WP:GEOFEAT. It also fails WP:NBUILDING. According to this article reference, the original building was burned during the Philippine–American War. Its replacement was destroyed in World War II. The current building was built 1949.
 * According to the spreadsheet I downloaded at the "Download the Local Inventory of Cultural Property" link, this church's description by the Philippine Registry of Cultural Property is:
 * "Declared as a Municipal Historical Landmark by virtue of Ordinance No. 05-2019, "Ordinance Declaring the Most Holy Rosary Parish Church as Municipal Historical Landmark and Providing Measures for its Conservation."
 * "The church was burned twice during the American-Fil war and Japanese occupation. Some parts of its structure, particularly the bell tower were also destroyed because of previous earthquake"


 * The authorizing ordnance was issued by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Padre Garcia city.


 * The church's "official Filipino name" is "Parokya ng Santisimo Rosaryo"


 * Searching for "Parokya ng Santisimo Rosaryo", I found there was an at least a mention somewhere in an August 2018 issue of The Varsitarian, a campus newspaper, but I don't understand the Tagalog language. That was all I found.

-- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't fault A. B.'s analysis above which confirms the view expressed earlier by two editors that this fails WP:GEOFEAT, and that it also fails WP:NBUILDING. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. While it does appear that it is not nationally protected, it is locally protected and appears to pass WP:GNG, so I maintain that it is notable. Also remember that just because the current building may not be that old doesn't mean the church itself doesn't have a long history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, I think. I feel that I may be missing something, but I don't see any third-party sources in the article or in this discussion (apart from the above-referenced spreadsheet), nor am I able to locate any myself. I'm surprised that a church that has been through this much wouldn't have some nontrivial coverage (and I agree with Necrothesp that previous church structures would properly be part of the same encyclopedic topic). But we can only work with what we have, and I'm not seeing anything that would come close to clearing either the GNG or any relevant SNG. -- Visviva (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2023 (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.