Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Shrine of Ina Poon Bato


 * 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 merge to Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines). Liz Read! Talk! 00:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

National Shrine of Ina Poon Bato

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

I'm doubtful that this shrine has sufficient notability, based on third-party independent sources, to warrant its own page. Currently the article only has two unique citations, both directly related to the Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines). There are passing mentions of the shrine in two Manila Times articles, but I don't think this satisfies the notability criteria per WP:NBUILD. For any unique information here, I would recommend that it be Merged into Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines). FyzixFighter (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Philippines. FyzixFighter (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, how can I vote keep? Ploreky (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, I see no reason for Deletion for this article. Why? as it is stated in WP:NBUILD, Third party sources are only to prove its notability and most of all verifiability, and as you said, you already founded 1, so there's no reason to delete it because you've already verified it. Next, if you think these aren't enough to establish notability, then I can give these links National Shrine of Ina Poon Bato, Heyplace churches, The milagrosans, pandurog ng bato mula sa hongkong, etc. I think atleast these links should verify the church. Now, if you think this article should be deleted because it only has 1 independent source, then I will say 1 source is better than nothing, In my experience on wikipedia, I've handled many articles that are not, in any way, quite notable, yet wikipedia allows it. I've edited many church less notable than this church like: Church of the Good Shepherd (Raquette Lake, New York), St John's Parish Church, South Hornchurch, Bel Air Church. Now, even though these articles lack 3rd sources, why did wikipedia allow it? It's because it's verified, that is what's important.
 * If we will follow your logic and will try to delete this article just because it doesn't have more than 1 independent source, then you must also delete these articles: INC Central Temple, Iglesia Filipina Independiente National Cathedral, ADD Convention Center etc. Because these articles doesn't even have 1 independent article within it. And thus, also doesn't have notability.
 * Why is it also a need to verify its notability? Isn't it common sense? That a headquarter of a notable denomination is also indeed notable? As stated in NBUILD: buildings "may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance". Now, what do you think is this shrine is? This shrine is of Social and Architectural importance, no proofs needed, only common sense. Since this is a headquarters, it has Social and Architectural importance. Ploreky (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The next clause in the part you quoted from WP:NBUILD tells how the notability it describes is determined - by "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." None of the links you have provided satisfy this. The only independent, reliable source you've mentioned appears to be the Manila Times articles but they do not provide in-depth coverage. Everything else is either a WP:SPS or does not satisfy WP:RS. That other articles like this exist is insufficient rationale (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you get it Sir, WP:OTHERSTUFF is different from what I am saying. My reason is different from opinion. I'm going to ask, what are you trying to say? Are you trying to say that the National Shrine, with even independent articles, are LESS notable than the ones that doesn't have it? Where's the logic in that.
 * By sending me WP:OTHERSTUFF, your basically just telling me:
 * "Shut up, I do what I want to do, I don't care if the National Shrine is more notable than the other churches, if I want to delete it, I'm gonna delete it, I don't care about the other churches that doesn't show notability or those that are even less notable than this church I'll just let them go. And if you're gonna be against it, I'll just show that I'm the victim and you're the disruptor, that way, I can manipulate others so that I can do anything"
 * That's what you're basically trying to tell me right? or atleast that's what I think.


 * As the original maker of the NSIPB, I'll allow you to delete, or atleast merge this article into the denomination of it, as long as you do the same to These articles as well, because it will be prejudistic if you just remove this only one article when all these articles I gave you denies WP:NBUILD. But, if you do not agree, and you only want to delete this specific article, then, I'll just fight for my basis until an admin hears us out. Ploreky (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what I'm telling you. You might also do well to familiarize yourself with WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVIL. Especially with the latter since you're establishing a pattern of interaction with those you disagree with that will likely lead to WP:ANI. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ohhhhh, I'm so sorry, I ot a little bit overboard there. I'm really sorry, now that I got a good night sleep, I just realized it. Sorry Ploreky (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You can nominate any article you want for deletion, so long as it has merit. Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge with Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines): Not enough notability, needs multiple independent reliable secondary sources. If notability is found, I will change my vote to keep. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, If I'm right, these should be enough. 10 Facts about EDSA shrine, All events.com, National Shrine of Ina Poon Bato Quezon city, https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/07/31/news/apostolic-church-patriarch-and-founding-bishop/1809211, national-and-local-officials-lead-gawad-san-juan-florentino(Second Paragraph). http://acc-ingkong-blockrosarycrusaders.blogspot.com/2008/08/ang-ina-poon-bato-ang-ina-ng-mga.html, https://sealedlovedones.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/mni-3-4-2011_message-for-auxiliaries.pdf, https://archive.tonite.abante.com.ph/acc-mutya-ng-pasko-2019-kinoronahan/ Ploreky (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The first is a blog and doesn't actually talk about the shrine in question. The 2nd and 3rd links are two directory-type websites - they are neither reliable sources nor provide any coverage besides that it exists. The 4th and 5th links are a reliable source but only provide passing mention, not in-depth coverage. And the 6th and 7th link are from the ACC and therefore not independent. None of which satisfy WP:NBUILD. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sir, are you really insisting that??? Holy frick, First of all, what is wikipedia? It isn't just a website that you can just delete the articles you don't want? No matter how many links I give you, as long as you're not open-minded to it, you will never ever accept it. This article will improve wikipedia, Demands on an article about the Apostolic Catholic Church's Headquarters are increasing, so, I already gave my links, I already reasoned reasonably, This article is already commonsensically notable, that's why, if you still can't accept it, F*** you.In case you get it wrong, it's frick
 * First of all, how can you tell that the 1st link I give you does not pertain to the Shrine??? how? It is already stated there that it is already the shrine that the Church owns. Next, I'm actually wondering, How tf can you actually just throw/disregard the Refs I gave you just like that??? I can't even think its humanely possible, hahahahaha. I mean, you just literally throwed to the trash all of the links I gave you. What the hell.
 * I'm sorry if I'm being a mastodon. I just can't help it. You're disregarding our reasoning ang just listening to your ego. Hck your even questioning a user who have been an admin for 16 years! Mr.@Necrothesp years as being an admin may even be older than you. "None of which satisfy WP:NBUILD". Satisfy NBUILD or satisfy you? Ploreky (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on the post title and text, the first link (to a "Discover Walks Blog" post) is about the EDSA Shrine, which is a different and distinct building. It's unfortunate that they got their photo captions wrong, but another example why blog posts do not generally meet WP:RS. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, none of the sources are useful here. Was it discussed in local media at length or any article confirming the history of the place? Those would help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge to ACC: with few improvements, Since it is notable within its own subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ploreky (talk • contribs) 02:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cathedrals are generally considered notable. And this one seems to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the policy or discussion that established that cathedrals are generally considered notable? WP:GNG still requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Which sources do you feel satisfy this? --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is about as close to it as we get, so basically we need to meet GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I think this article could be improved with sources about "Our lady of Ina Poon Bato", which is the focus of the shrine: e.g. 1. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would argue then that a Our Lady of Ina Poonbato might deserve an article then merge relevant information from this article to that. However, notability is usually not inherited. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Already shown notability as per the sources presented above. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the links that User:Ploreky has provided above and I'm not seeing which ones qualify as reliable, independent sources providing significant coverage. Which ones do you see as satisfying this? --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh f*** right! SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if they pass GNG, I restored my vote to the first one. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Kapatid, anong pinagdududa mo? Nagbigay na ako ng mga independenteng mga sources, anong hindi mo sure na nakapass ito sa GNG??? Kapatid, parehas tayong wikipedia editor, alam mo at alam ko ang batas. Hindi tayo magiging Extended confirmed user kung hindi tayo marunong diba? Ploreky (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please keep the comments in English please, it keeps it fair for all who come to comment. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you're not still satisfied? Come on, I already gave 8 Source and 4 of them are Independent ones. I don't know why you still think that it's not notable.
 * Brother @FyzixFighter, what's still your problem? Notability? I already gave it. Kapatid na @SeanJ 2007, what is "right?" Come on, I already gave numerable links. Just vote keep. Just in case, review all the links again. Ploreky (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if the sources you mentioned can really pass GNG. I am editing Wikipedia for 1 year, but until now I don't know if a source can really pass GNG. I am just participating on the rules of Wikipedia. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For now, my vote is merge. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oooohhhh, okay okay. Just review the links I gave you, many of those are independent 3rd and 2nd party links. Ploreky (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:NBUILD with sources presented by Ploreky. They're reliable adn in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not going to !vote (neither "Keep", "Merge to Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines)" nor "Delete" for failing the notability criteria of standards, specifically WP:NBUILD), but based on the current eight reference sources that are in the nominated page as of this writing, seven sources are came from the same website and the sole source was from Facebook (which is clearly NOT a source per WP:RS/P through WP:RSPFB and WP:EL/P through WP:FACEBOOK). In these findings, the article itself doesn't match and meet the Wikipedia policies and guidelines including per WP:SIGCOV as well as its notability stands. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm going to be honest, I am confused by the comments saying that the links provided by Ploreky represent significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources, thus satisfying WP:NBUILD. My own assessment of the links is as follows:
 * Placedigger - National Shrine of Ina Poon Bato - Yellowbook equivalent listing, passing mention and not a reliable source
 * HeyPlaces - National Shrine of Ina Poon Bato - another Yellowbook equivalent listing, passing mention, potentially user-generated and not a reliable source
 * THE MILAGROSANS - Ang Pambansang Dambana ng Ina Poon Bato - appears to be a blog by the ACC, only passing mention, wordpress site - not a reliable source, not independent
 * AMCEquip. - passing mention, looks like it might be a content farm?
 * Discover Walks Blog - Top 10 Little Known Facts About EDSA Shrine - blogpost is about the EDSA Shrine not the NSIPB
 * AllEvents page - passing mention, user-generated content, not a reliable source
 * Onsono - National Shrine of Ina Poon Bato - another Yellowbook/advertising equivalent listing, passing mention, not a reliable source
 * The Manila Times - Apostolic church patriarch and founding bishop - finally, something that qualifies as a reliable source... but only passing mention of NSIPB
 * The Manila Times - National and local officials lead Gawad San Juan Florentino - a reliable source... but only passing mention of NSIPB
 * ACC-Ingkon "Block Rosary Crusaders" - ACC affiliated blog, not independent
 * - ACC published memo, not independent
 * Abante Tonite - ACC Mutya ng Pasko 2019 kinoronahan - a reliable source tabloid... but only passing mention of NSIPB
 * I don't see any of the links qualify as reliable, in-depth, and independent. For those who do think Ploreky's links satisfy NBUILD, where is my assessment incorrect? --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC) correcting based on comment by Lenticel below. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I would like to tell again, as stated in WP:GNG, you already proved it's notability. As you said, there is already atleast 3 independent sources. And that is more than enough to prove its notability, and the rest are just for verifications that the subject really exists.
 * As I will say again, as it is stated in WP:NBUILD buildings, like the NSIPB, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance as it is stated in this sentence, this alone should be enough to prove its notability as it is a national Headquarters of a notable denomination. Meaning, all of the members of this denomination already knows this shrine, hence, it is notable. Ploreky (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You keep forgetting the subsequent requirement listed in WP:NBUILD - "but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" (emphasis mine). To establish notability of a historically, socially, economically, or architecturally important building we need sources that are 1) in-depth coverage, 2) reliable, and 3) independent. Which of the sources provided satisfies all three? --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, none of these are useful for this article. We need sources that talk about the place, not articles that simply mention it in relation to something else. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 00:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines). I only found one of the references stated above as a plausible reference. I've added other external sources to the parent article to improve its quality. Anyways, FyzixFighter's assessment are mostly correct except Abante Tonite is a tabloid and is probably not the best source out there. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines). There is not enough here for an article.  There is an important difference between sources that mention a shrine and those that provide significant coverage. As the WP:GNG says: ''"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail."  --Bejnar (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete sources confirming it exists, but nothing we can use to build an article here. The "thing" 's website and church websites aren't RS and this is a long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines) and then redirect Atlantic306 (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2022 (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.