Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Heart Parish, Greenfield


 * 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. Kubigula (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sacred Heart Parish, Greenfield

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable defunct parish; oddly enough, the article was created after the parish was closed. A G-News search from the beginning of 2009 up to the present (a range encompassing the closing of the parish) shows zero hits, indicating that the closing was relatively uncontroversial. Prod removed by the article creator with the comment "No supporting evidence to indicate not notability" ... however, it is not up to those seeking an article's removal due to a lack of notability to support the action, but up to those seeking to retain an article to provide sources demonstrating the subject's notability. Only one of the sources provided mentions the parish at all, a page quoted from a historical excerpt produced by the parish itself. The article is not only orphaned and substantively unimproved since creation, with the parish's closing it is unimprovable.  Ravenswing  10:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete unless someone can find multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage by the end of the usual 7 day AFD period. There is no assumption of notability for church buildings or religious congregations, whether present or former. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that ever existed, and the sources provided do not satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero &#124; My Talk  02:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is a historical place connected with ethnic settlement.--Vladek Komorek (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: No doubt. What element of WP:GNG, WP:V or WP:ORG do you believe is satisfied by its "ethnic settlement?" (The building is not on the National Register of Historic Places, which is the only measure of "historical place" beyond satisfying the GNG.)  Ravenswing  09:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not exactly. National Register of Historic Places is not the main criteria to decide what is history and what is not. Think about the history of the two million Poles in USA or other nations. People makes history not buildings.--Vladek Komorek (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply: Of course, neither the history of Poland or of Polish-Americans generally have any bearing on the notability of this particular church; since Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, it is not our business to decide what is history or not, but to cite reliable sources which do. Those sources are lacking, and you have failed to produce any. You've certainly been on Wikipedia long enough, and have had quite enough edits, to recognize that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines governing notability.  It is longstanding consensus that being on the NRHP is sufficient to establish notability.  Failing that, multiple reliable, independent sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail", sufficient to satisfy the GNG, would do.  Do you have any grounds found in Wikipedia policies and guidelines to sustain a Keep argument?  Ravenswing  16:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 13:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete parish cruft; there is nothing in the references to indicate notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The 1954 "History of Greenfield" Vol. 3 by Charles Sidney Severance seems to cover this parish at some length, but only snippet views are available via Google books. I'm seeing a few other sources which verify the community and construction of the church. A look at Paul Jenkins's "The Conservative Rebel" (a commissioned Greenfield town history) gives one passing mention, but several mentions of the important impact of the Polish community in the village. I'd recommend a keep and a search for offline sources. The Historical Society of Greenfield and the Greenfield Public Library would certainly have offline records which met WP:IRS. In addition, the Greenfield Recorder has been serving the community for over 200 years and would also have RS and info (but behind a paywall). That Google doesn't offer more is merely a function of modern copyright law. Failing keep, Merge to Greenfield, Massachusetts. BusterD (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. This may be slightly off-topic (and O synthesis), but the central importance of the Catholic tradition to Polish communities is well-established in literature and culture: to offer just one example, the vast positive influence of the Polish Pope John Paul II on the Solidarity success in ending communism in Poland. I could point to dozens of other examples ranging from the middle ages through the current day. This is merely my opinion, but for this reason I believe sourced coverage of this particular community renders a presumption of notability (almost like the presumption given formerly populated places), even though offline sources haven't yet been applied. BusterD (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply: I agree with you that that involves a heap of presumption and synthesis, and indeed is far afield from the topic at hand, which is whether this subject meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines governing notability. Those guidelines do not mention, and have nothing to do with, generic presumptions that Catholic Polish churches are automatically notable because - as far as I parse your argument - they are both Polish and Catholic. That being said, it is a long established factor in deletion policy that editors advocating the retention of articles cannot merely claim that sources exist; they must produce them.  If you believe that the Recorder has articles beyond the purely local coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE, produce them.  If you believe that the GPL's Greenfield Room has the offline records you assert exist, cite them.  If you have found sources which discuss the subject in the "significant detail" the GNG requires - as these passing "Suchandsuch was hired to build a church in Greenfield, MA" citations of yours do not - provide them.  WP:V and WP:N do not permit us to allege that sources must somehow exist out there, somewhere.  They require that they be produced, cited and be available for editors to peruse.  Ravenswing  00:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ouch. I'd prefer to state my opinion as "given the strong historical and cultural connection between the RCC and the Polish community, this parish is well-documented enough and an important enough part of Greenfield, MA history to deserve its own article." Of the two of us, I'm not the one who lives a short drive from the Greenfield reading room. Yet I have found online and offline sources which I'm applying. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, online sources are not required, and offline sources which can be proved to exist and are said by RS to contain significant coverage can be presumed to exist, even without presentation. This subject meets WP:ORG, because multiple independent reliable sources directly detail the subject (UMass and History of Greenfield are sufficient); they are verifiable (though it might require inter-library loan to obtain Severance; I'm aware the NYPL has a copy of Severance, Vol. 3 and you could verify this yourself in the Greenfield room if you chose--it's probably in the Springfield library system too). BusterD (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage in books is sufficient, and defunct is irrelevant. It is especially the defunct that is in need of coverage in an encyclopedia .  DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The book coverage seems sufficient to me to meet the requirements for inclusion. As DGG says, being defunct is irrelevant. THere is nothing in any policy ot guidelines I know of that says that defunct places/companies/etc are inherently non-notable for being defunct.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:23, 2 February 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.