Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox Church (Merrillville, Indiana)


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn; notability established. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 02:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox Church (Merrillville, Indiana)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable, 1 source that is very iffy Happy_Attack_Dog  ( Throw Me a Bone ) 19:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

More sources and other details with links to other wikipedia articles have been added.--Chriskosovich (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- It sounds like a rather typical local church. I doubt that being 100 years old is enough to make it WP-notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- What makes St. Sava Church different from typical a typical local church is the unique connection it has with St. Varnava who is the first American-born Serbian Orthodox Saint, canonized in 2005. He is known as Saint Varnava (Nastić), also Barnabas the New Confessor, and was born with the name Vojislav Nastić in Gary, Indiana, on January 31, 1914 where he was then baptized, served as a young altar boy, and participated in the cultural experiences available through this particular St. Sava Church-School community. The St. Sava Church also served as an important cultural institution during a period in time that saw a great Serbian migration where people sought work in what was a cultural center of steel production in the United States. There are numerous references in independent sources going back as far as the 1970s that cite St. Varnava when he was a Bishop in the Serbian Orthodox Church and the connections he had in his life with St. Sava Church when he was alive. There are really no other churches in the United States that have any cited connections with this first American-born Serbian Orthodox Saint. This is why it is important for people seeking to learn the about the life of the modern day saint, Saint Varnava, to be able to track his life and developmental history back to his origin and find information about an organization that played a role in the shaping of his life path. Most importantly, it is important for such an entry in wikipedia so that the public researching the life history of St. Varnava will be able to tie in his early life and family references to his cultural development in the Northwest Indiana/Chicagoland area within an independent source such as Wikipedia.Chriskosovich (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, with thanks to User:Chriskosovich for improving the article to a point where notability is clear. User:Happy Attack Dog Please WP:DONTBITE the newbies.  A more productive response to coning on this  poorly sourced stub, and assuming that you did not want to invest the time in expanding the article (for which I don't blame you), would have been to tag it for notability.   A great many immigrant churches do pass notability, a glance at the website of the church linked from the page when you found it would have persuaded me that this one deserved a close look before being brought to AFD.  Very glad that the article is now sufficiently well sourced to stay around and be improved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you E.M.Gregory for your support and understanding. I have to admit when I saw User:Happy Attack Dog mark the article for deletion, I was wondering if I should bother continuing on and writing anymore, but when I honestly looked at the very little writing I created initially with the single source item at that time, I could see where someone reading the article would believe it should be marked for deletion. That is why I took efforts to continue adding the information I had ready to make it more substantial as it is today. So I have a question, should new articles only be created when there are a certain number of sources that are external? I give User:Happy Attack Dog credit for being so on top of things. I think User:Happy Attack Dog marked the article for deletion not long after I posted the article! I thought, "wow" these wikipedia editors quick! I am appreciative the article is getting more "keep" notations now. There is so much history around these immigrant churches and unfortunately, the populations today still often lack the ability to properly articulate the the significance they often have in our culture. I hope to create more articles about the notable churches and begin to link them together to help show a better picture of the migration patterns these institutions helped to facilitate. Thank you for the constructive criticism. This is one of my first wikipedia articles and the first one I have created in years. I would suggest, when marking an article for deletion, and if sources are lacking as this one was when first published, it could be helpful to suggest how it could be improved, which is a suggestion I believe was lacking when it was first marked for deletion. I am learning and appreciate all the help you are all doing to make this space valuable and fair. Thank you again!Chriskosovich (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, Now that more sources are added, we can be sure that this article is OK for Wikipedia. However, next time, should I take articles like this to Proposed deletion? Happy_Attack_Dog  ( Throw Me a Bone ) 18:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For my part, I only Prod articles if I have taken the time to search for notability and persuade myself that it's not out there. When I see an article that looks like it lacks notability, but I don't want to invest very much time, I  put up a notability template. If it already has a template, and I don't want to invest time in it,  I add my 2 cents either on the talk page or by flagging points in the article that need sourcing, and leave it for someone who works on the topic.  Others editors take much hastier/more aggressive approaches to deletion.  I do take especial care with newbies, Wikipedia suffers so badly from a shortage of editors, that I hate to discourage new ones.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2016 (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.