Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slovak National Catholic Church




 * 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. Consensus is clear, and there is no reason to expect that relisting would yeild a consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 05:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Slovak National Catholic Church

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I cannot find any centered reliable secondary source to establish that this alleged organisation meets WP:GNG (WP:NCHURCH). There is a clear lack of notability. The previous PROD was opposed, with the opposing user stating the WP:PASSING mentions on Google Scholar were a proof of notability. Obviously, it is not (WP:GNG: Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material".). Therefore, this article should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Potential keep but tag for improvements -- This is about a denomination, not a mere local church. This is a stub, with no indication of the number of congregations, but I note there are enough to have a bishop.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not see how this article could be improved, since no source discusses it enough to say anything worthwhile. Besides, the article has already been tagged with a Template:Unreferenced for more than 3 months. Veverve (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You know as well as I do that that doesn't mean anything. Anyway, I have just added three references. StAnselm (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: we generally (but not always) keep denominations - even ones much, much, smaller. But it looks like we do, in fact, have sources providing significant coverage. There are lots of GBooks results, it's just that they are almost all in snippet view. E.g. StAnselm (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:PASSING. Veverve (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so - particularly the first one, which has eight pages with the phrase. StAnselm (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That source is a dissertation (implied at least, but stated as such here). Would it good to use per WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Eh, hard to say when we can't read it... but 8 pages on 500+ pages isn't spectacular. Still, if you can request it by ILL, you ought to do so. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a published dissertation, which is completely different. StAnselm (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: There are also the references in the Eugene Magyar article, including a NYT obituary. StAnselm (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There are tons of sources. I've added some of them.  All it takes is a bit of research. Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Noel S McFerran: what you did is textbook WP:OVERCOME. All the sources you gave that I can be read online contain only WP:PASSING mentions; the exception is the The encyclopedia of American Catholic history which only has a short notice. Veverve (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not require that all sources "can be read online". An article entitled "The Slovak National Catholic Church, Passaic, New Jersey, and the Jeczusko Affair" is clearly specifically about this topic. An article in The Encyclopedia of American Catholic History about the "Slovak National Catholic Church" is specifically about this topic.  Why would it be appropriate for The Encyclopedia of American Catholic History to cover this topic, but for Wikipedia to ignore it? WP:OVERCOME is "an essay on notability. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." The same is true of WP:PASSING. WP:NPOV is more than that; it is a "guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia and The Encyclopedia of American Catholic History probably have a different standards of inclusion. 6 sentences is not an article, but an entry. With professional historians likely incorporating archival information, clippings, parish histories, and a dearth of other resources at their disposal and not ours (online or not), their coverage begins with a statement that the data is "sketchy at best." It's not WP:SIGCOV. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * delete as does not meet notability. The quality of coverage needed has not been found. Not by a longshot. Nor is it strongly suggested to exist in offline sources. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * When you say "quality of the coverage", do you mean that it isn't significant coverage? Or is the quality of the source, that it isn't a reliable source? Either way, what's wrong with the Encyclopedia of American Catholic History reference? StAnselm (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So a 6-sentence entry in a Catholic encyclopedia, which covers so many Catholic topics, is significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV? Not quite. It is tertiary, not secondary. Is it reliable? Likely, though with no sources listed, we aren't pointed to other sources. It's an OK source, but it's not a great one, as it does not list its own sources.
 * Roughly half of the text of the article as now is on individual parishes with coverage of their existence. One of the references is to a footnote. Some others are to similarly brief mentions. The snippet views don't appear to have very much more significant information, though maybe one or more has something.  DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per the 4 sources uncovered by StAnselm, all published books, which together are enough imo. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability is demonstrated by the sourced identified. Thparkth (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the multiple reliable sources book coverage identified in this discussion so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2022 (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.