Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salisbury Catholic Parish SA


 * 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. It seems that the copyvio concerns have been addressed through a rewrite.  Sandstein  18:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Salisbury Catholic Parish SA

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no reason to think that anything about a Catholic parish would be notable. Anything notable could be included at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide. Grahame (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is not the first article about a Parish; there are others about Anglican and Catholic Parishes. In fact, the reason I have written the title as the Salisbury Catholic Parish SA, it is because there is another article about a Salisbury Parish located in New Brunswick Canada, plus the necessity to distinguish the Salisbury Catholic Parish from the Salisbury Anglican Parish. Therefore, I think that Wikipedia needs to be consistent and we cannot write just about the Canadian Parishes and leave outside the Australian ones or about the Anglican Parishes and ignore the Catholic Parishes. I agree that the notability of this article is not because it is about a Catholic Parish, but because from a historic perspective for the City of Salisbury Council, the city of Adelaide and ultimately South Australia, the Salisbury Parish represents an important part of their heritage and history. The fact that the Parish is not five hundred years old as some Parishes in Europe or hundreds of years as the Parishes in the Americas does not mean that the article is irrelevant. Unfortunately, the history of Australia is very recent compared to other countries and hardly you will find something about before 1840s in Adelaide, except for Aboriginal art. Hence, using such a criteria, it would be very hard to write about South Australian History in Wikipedia. But if we consider that the old St Augustine Church and the presbytery are among the oldest buildings in the district and that they are considered heritage buildings by the authorities, then I do not think that it can be ignore their relevance. Actually, in Salisbury there were some other churches that were considered as heritage, but unfortunately we have lost them by reason of different circumstances. Also to be noted that the St Augustine Church was used by the Orthodox community until they were able to build their own church, so this temple is also part of the past of the Orthodox community. All this history perhaps is not important for somebody at the other side of the World or maybe living in Sydney or Melbourne, but from the South Australian viewpoint, it is part of the history that we would like to leave to our children and grandchildren. Otherwise, as it happened with the old Methodist Church in Salisbury, it will be knocked down or remodelled as it was the case of the Anglican old church. I spoke to my brother who is an architect and he assures me that from an architectural point of view definitely the old church has notability. The fact that you may not be interested in the history of Salisbury or that you do not share historic or architectural interests does not mean that an article is not notable, but I can tell you that for most locals is central to their identity. I have also added some references where those sources were provided by local authorities and from their perspective the Salisbury Parish is also part of our history. The same case is for the cemetery and the schools, if you consider how many pioneers are buried in such cemetery and how many children from these area have studied in those schools. Probably, the article needs improvement to transmit clearer these ideas. However, please consider that about 20% of the population in this area is Catholic and that we share this heritage, but even for people that are not Catholics such as the Orthodox community, the Catholic Parish and their churches and schools are valuable and of their interest. About including this information in the article of the Archdiocese of Adelaide, please keep in mind that there are about 69 Parishes in the Archdiocese and perhaps some are very small, but there are some others that have their own history and they are very active hence, the length of the article of the archdiocese could become very long. Arangel1970 (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This was speedily deleted as a copyright violation. Following discussion at Deletion review/Log/2017 December 19, I'm reopening the AfD to allow this question to be discussed here. Please refer to the DRV for a discussion of whether this content was properly released under a free license or not.
 * You might be confused between ecclesiastical parishes and municipal parishes. For example, Salisbury Parish, New Brunswick is the equivalent of a census subdivision. These pass notability under WP:GEOLAND, although I think Canadian parishes are somewhat marginal. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge. If "anything notable could be included at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide," this is a merger discussion. I agree with a selective merge. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide can be expanded so that there is a brief history of each parish, rather than a list. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Due to heritage listing, it seems likely that the old St Augustine's Roman Catholic Church and Presbytery are notable buildings that could merit an article at St Augustine's Roman Catholic Church, assuming the WP:COPYVIO and WP:PROMO concerns are addressed. Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I separated information about the heritage-listed church into a separate section that could be easily moved into a separate article. This building is notable based on WP:GEOFEAT, although the parish itself may not be notable. I could not find much in the article about the presbytery. Details of the presbytery and architectural description of the church building both need to be added. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Arangel1970, it seems likely that you have a conflict of interest here, if so, you must disclose it on the article talk page. I speedied this before as blatant spam, and i would have done so again if it wasn't for the merge suggestion. I'll content myself with going through and removing the obvious unsourced or self-sourced promo Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral on notability, but delete based on copyright. Please see my DRV comment here for more detail on my copyright concerns.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - If the COPY-VIO issues can be resolved there is just about enough here for us to keep, as an early Catholic parish, but it should be renamed to Salisbury Catholic Parish, South Australia as the abbreviation SA will not be obvious to non-Australians. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep sources, especially on the old St. Augustine church building, suffice to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've changed my opinion based on the notability of the historic buildings per WP:GEOFEAT and the historic contribution of the parish to the Salisbury community per WP:GNG (particularly as the history of the parish is intrinsically tied to the history of the buildings). There could be a better title and a more appropriate focus for the article, but that is a separate discussion. We have responded to the copyvio concern, old versions can be deleted (if necessary for legal and policy reasons) without deleting the current version. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2018 (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.