Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Lady of Soufanieh


 * 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   no consensus.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 02:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Our Lady of Soufanieh

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Deletion of Our Lady of Soufanieh has been discussed by users on Talk:Our Lady of Soufanieh. Lack of notability per WP:Notable and lack of WP:Reliable references has been discussed there. All roads for this item seem to lead back to its own webpage without a single major newspaper article, despite the many claims on the page, and it seems to fall into the Weeping painting territory as well. This item seems to be getting publicity from Wikipedia (it has referral links added for it in several other wikipages) when major newspapers do not give it press. History2007 (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at the "References" and "Bibliography" section of the article will quickly disconfirm as unsubstantiated the charge that it is based on a single website. That these sources are in several different languages is hardly an objection. Guardaiinalto (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, to be honest, the article as it stands now is not notable and its references are less than reliable. I didn't go too deep in searching for sources, but a shallow search shows no reliable sources. If anybody here feels they can rescue it, I would give them more time, otherwise I have to agree with this AFD. Yazan (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

But have you read the sources provided, esp. those by Sbalchiero, Zahlauoi and Touw? What makes you say that they are "less than reliable"? Guardaiinalto (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please See this, Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, from mainstream famous publishers. This whole article is an exceptional claim. Yazan (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the claims are extraordinary. In fact, the claim that reproductions produce oil means that if one makes 20 reproductions and leaves them there for 4 weeks, a good amount of oil will be produced which can be used to generate energy, if desired. That would seem to go against the law of conservation of energy since the oil is produced just by itself and can be used as part of a perpetual motion device. Hence, true or false, it is an extraordinary situation and hence an extraordinary claim. History2007 (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:V. A simple search using Google Books demonstrates that the topic is noteable. I think this article was meant to go to WP:RESCUE, not here. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but the article obviously needs rewording to make it clear that it's reporting what some people believe, rather than claiming that that belief is true. Here's a "major newpaper article" as requested by the nominator. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but the Exceptional claim needs exceptional source issue remains unresolved. History2007 (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The claim that some people believe this is by no means exceptional. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:07, 7 April 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.