Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Francis Xavier's Church (Bronx, New York)


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 19:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

St. Francis Xavier's Church (Bronx, New York)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails notability requirements as a company or organization Yaksar (let's chat) 06:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Just an ordinary church doing what churches do. No claim to notability. Ravendrop (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as always the reliable references make it notable, not some extraordinary claim. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, reliable references alone are not enough if they do not demonstrate why the subject has notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that is the very definition of Wikipedia notability, what you are thinking of is exceptionability, not notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm thinking of notability. I could find you tons of notable sources on a car crash that happened near me last week, or on the construction going on for the bridge in my town. That wouldn't make these notable, however; there are other requirements. The fact that the articles on this church only concern it's establishment, it's dedication (which I'd remind you is not a spectacular or unique event for a Catholic church, in fact I think it may always happen) and an obituary point to a lack of notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you are deliberatly confusing WP:Oneevent with WP:Notability. A car crash is notable but excluded as a single event. The notability of the church runs from 1928 to 1950 and beyond based on the coverage. Coverage of a standard car accident doesn't extend beyond the single reporting in the paper. As the guideline says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone articl" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I chose car crash because it was something non-notable that could get coverage. The same would apply if I was talking about, say, a local park or deli. If we go based on organizations of companies that have ever had news written about their construction or dedication, every single person would feel justified in adding their local church, local group, or whatever.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If your deli got coverage in The New York Times from 1928 to 1950 it should have an article like Zabars. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not if the only coverage was "so and so is planning on opening a deli" and "Congressman Whatever said they made his favorite sandwich, and held a meeting outside." Plenty of things get coverage that don't deserve articles.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you are pretending to not know the difference between significant coverage and the word appearing in an article. Do you always play this silly game? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying that, in my book, "A church is being opened," and "The church has been blessed" don't make it notable. But this part of the discussion clearly isn't going anywhere.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect (to the diocese article or some other suitable article). Not notable; the strongest claim to notability that I can find is that a priest of this parish later became a bishop. The existence of multiple news articles in the New York Times does not indicate notability, since this is a local New York City church and the articles are about commonplace events in the life of any local church (i.e., new parish established, local parish priest gets promoted and leaves, local church dedicates new building, and local priest dies). --Orlady (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." There's a reason we have all these notability guidelines for songs, companies, athletes, etc.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again you have it backwards. The GNG trumps all other guidelines. The guidelines for athletes and porn stars and songs, loosen the eligibility requirements, not tighten them for those categories. They allow entry of people and objects neglected by mainstream reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article quality with references has been improved. The notable first pastor who went on to become bishop in SLC and Rochester not only founded the parish but also founded the school. Architecturally, the parish church is significant in itself (despite the fact that the architect's name is missing), but it was also designed in harmony with the parish school and convent. The parish school has been added to the article.---James R (talk)
 * You've added a lot of good info, none of which unfortunately establishes notability. You've expanded on the bios of the heads of the church, and while that's useful, the important things they seem to have done outside of the church do not make the church itself notable. The description of the buildings is well written, but is only sourced from some blog. There are countless buildings in NYC, but this one doesn't demonstrate any particular architectural significance. The architect is not known, it is not notable for its architectural features, and we'd need a better source for it anyway. As for the school, the only sources seem to be it's official site and a blog. While it's relevant to the article, it doesn't add any sense of notability either.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - it's pretty obvious now that the size of the article has almost quadrupled in the last few days, and there are 3 references from the New York Times. Smallbones (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - lots of RS, good article. -- Ja Ga  talk 20:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As said by Orlady above: "Not notable; the strongest claim to notability that I can find is that a priest of this parish later became a bishop. The existence of multiple news articles in the New York Times does not indicate notability, since this is a local New York City church and the articles are about commonplace events in the life of any local church (i.e., new parish established, local parish priest gets promoted and leaves, local church dedicates new building, and local priest dies)."--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are still arguing the Guinness World Record definition of exceptionability and not the Wikipedia definition of notability. As the guideline says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" It doesn't mention anything about being the tallest, or oldest or first or last. If the media deem it notable to write about, it is notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A very well documented article on a Bronx church. Notable enough for me, but others may disagree.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Excellent job on expansion, which has taken this article much further in clearly establishing notability based on sources. Alansohn (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alansohn. Notability seems to be established by sources provided. --Europe22 (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2011 (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.