Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rani Maria Vattalil


 * 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. Copyright violations should be cleaned up, but copyright violations in themselves are not an argument for deletion, unless the entire article is a blatant copyright violation per CSD G12. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 02:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Rani Maria Vattalil

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

With greatest respect to Rani Maria Vattalil, she appears to have been a nun of local great significance, but without significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As for the "Servant of God" assertion, I can find no mention of this in the archives of L'Osservatore Romano. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

why reliable preferred for deletion,not unreliable

BEFORE NEGOTIATING DELETION OF this article

you should check UNRELIABLE ARTICLES LIKE Thoma of Villarvattom,which looks funny and which doesnot even exist.i would call it an article on people who never even exist.i would call Thoma of Villarvattom, a ghost article " you have to first negotiate deletion of ghost articles about people whose existence has never happened or imagined by certain people." Users of wikipedia should not show interest in deleting reliable articles --Johnyjohny294 (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

i can point out thousands of article like this--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

and moreover L'Osservatore Romano online is not the place to search for list of servants of god.for that you have to contact vatican tribunals directly or syro malabar church. i can give you certain indian newspapers links for the same God’s own saints

i dont know whether this will satisfy you

it would be better if somebody remove that deletion tags and for your information i subscribe vatican newspapers. --Johnyjohny294 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Please do not shout. Wikipedia is not the place to get emotionally involved, as there is so much that one editor cannot control. If you want the article to stay, just take the time to remove the biased language from the article and find some reliable sources that assert her significance. We cannot violate the rules of Wikipedia just because the subject of an article is well-liked. For an article to stay, it must be neutral and verifiable.  hajat vrc  @ 08:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also relevant: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources seem to exist, including an English bio published in India, brief bios in other books, news coverage, and further coverage in Indian and Italian sources. Tidying was required, not deletion. Note on searching: "Sister Rani Maria" seems to be how she's generally referred to. -- 202.124.72.77 (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep A great example of a deletion discussion acting as a catalyst for the improvement of the article. The bias is gone and sources have appeared. Nice job!  hajat vrc  @ 17:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Per improvements to the article and comments above. Hopefully someone will be able to watch the article and keep it in good encyclopedic standing. heather walls (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There appears not to be sufficient reliable information about her to write without copyright violations of ll local articles. Editor above should feel to nominate all other non-reliable article for deletion and canvas the known universe for assistance. Eau (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am confused as to what you mean in your first sentence. Would you expand on how a small number of sources necessitates copyright violations? Is there something wrong with the article in its current state?  hajat vrc  @ 18:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't necessitate copy vios, it leads to easy copy vios when there is so little information all the editor does is repeat the little that is sitting in the small number of local sources. JohnnyJohnnyScreamAtEveryone's image uploads, all of them, and other articles should also be verified for correct copyright. If he owns the copyright to these web images he uploaded in jpeg pixelated form, they require permissions attaches to the pages and he could upload higher resolution images. If he doesn't they should be removed immediately. Eau (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns about the image copyrights, but I am wondering what specifically in the article right now is a copyright violation. I think that the problem here is that most of the sources on Sr. Rani Maria are in other languages (that will not appear if you are using a search engine that is only giving you English results). But Wikipedia has people for that! We just need to give our translators a chance to learn about the article and find the sources. This is not an isolated incident, it has happened before.  hajat vrc  @ 19:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The contract killer sentence, the landless sentence. So, you didn't bother to read the sources, and you what, we should just ignore image copyright violations? Not much support for this article, is there? Further along in the sainthood process will be further sources, and Wikipedia has plenty of Indian editors to help with translations as necessary. The murder was in Indore? It's probably published in both English and Hindi, then. Eau (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course we should not ignore image copyright violations. This discussion is about Rani Maria Vattalil, where there is only one image. This image was not uploaded by Johny, but by an administrator who explains the copyright status. Other image copyrights violations should be dealt with elsewhere. I never criticized you for saying there were copyright violations in this article. I asked you where you saw them so I would know. All I ever requested was explanation.
 * You say there is not much support for the article, and then say that there must be support in Hindi and that we have translators who could access it. So what is the rationale for deleting the entire article? The "landless" clause should be removed immediately because it is copy-and-pasted (I will do that after I submit this). But as far as the rest of the information goes, the similarities between the sources and the article will be rectified when we have more sources (which will be accessible by these translators).  hajat vrc  @ 23:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The "landless poor" clause was not a copyvio: it's a standard phrase which doesn't even occur in the source. It was not copy-pasted. The similarities between the sources and the article are not a copyvio, but reflect the telling of the same facts. And we don't delete article because actual copyvios might perhaps occur in future. -- 202.124.75.19 (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My interest inbeing wiki-lawyer cudgelled todeath is zero. Wikipedia wastes too much time with wikilawyering allowances to copy and pasters, and there is always more talk, never a jump to just delete the copyrighted information, and it just gets worse and worse. But here we are, not editing, not improving, but talking instead of removing. I feel the cudgel blows reigning down on me, but I have said my say, and leave you to discuss, discuss, cudgel, discuss, discuss, cudgel. Eau (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Our discussion has now allowed the information to stay and the copyright violation to be gone. Discussion is good.  hajat vrc  @ 23:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion is good indeed. Hajatvrc's involvement has led to improved wording and an additional source. -- 202.124.75.19 (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since User:Johnyjohny294 has been blocked, the copyvio problem is not likely to continue. -- 202.124.72.76 (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Assuming we can get over any COPYVIO issue, this would seem an articel worth keeping because she was a martyr. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2012 (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.