Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph Parish, Gowanda, 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   delete. Secret account 19:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

St. Joseph Parish, Gowanda, New York

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable local church; seems to have been created as a WP:COATRACK to publicize parishioners, especially the Gernatt family. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  03:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a reluctant !vote since someone obviously invested a great deal of effort into this article. However the article does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. The sources generally don't meet our standards for establishing notability and as the nom points out there is strong evidence that this article had a promotional objective. I would also refer any reviewing editors to my note on the talk page and a rather lengthy discussion by various editors of this article's merits and lack thereof here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:GNG or any other relevant notability guideline. No coverage in independent sources; cobbled together via sources from the parish/village itself and a lot of WP:OR. Article creator has a knack for creating large, attractively laid out articles which fail notability upon close examination, 95% of which are promotional of the Gernatt family. Softlavender (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete As AO said, it's unfortunate, but the editor who created this (and a number of related) articles insists on investing time in fantastic bloat on apparently non-notable subjects. For example, here is a passage about one of the parish's schools, now closed:
 * Patrick Brady was the principal of the School,[10][31][19][20][21][22][29][32][33][34] and Donna Cook is the assistant principal at the time of closure.[10][31] Cook taught 6th grade at the School, and has the most years of teaching experience - at 36 years - of anyone in its employ;[35] she also doubled, when needed, as assistant principal.[10][31]
 * Really? REALLY? Does the reader REALLY need to know who was the principal of a closed school (with ten -- count 'em, ten! -- citations) and that the 6th-grade teacher had the most teaching experience, and "also doubled, when needed, as assistant principal"? Of a now-closed school? What about the bus routes, you ask? Well,
 * Students were bussed to the School from more than 12 towns and/or villages, including Gowanda, Persia, Collins, Perrysburg, North Collins, Eden, Springville, Forestville, Cattaraugus, Little Valley, Pine Valley, and Silver Creek.[26] The Persia, Collins, and Perrysburg students were included in the Gowanda bus routes.
 * All of this is elaborately cited to school newsletters, parish circulars, pennysavers, and so on, giving the fake appearance of significant coverage, which in fact is absent. There's no sense at all of what's appropriate to include. EEng (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC) P.S. Bonus points for "The parish is named for St. Joseph." Thanks for letting us know!
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is indeed, as mentioned above, an elaborately constructed edifice, which upon closer inspection turns out to be made of pure fluff - "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". Does not pass WP:GNG or any of its derivative/subsidiary standards - there isn't even sufficient solid reference material for the shortest of stubs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete As per AO and EEng. Article is supposedly about a parish but is bloated with insignificant trivia about the church and school. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep How is this article any different from all of the other parishes and churches listed on this organization? This is just another reflection of the negativity of people's politics and personal perspectives against anything here that includes any mention about the Gernatt Family.  It makes it appear as though there is a political vendetta against anything that even remotely mentions these people.  This is so pathetic.  What happened to people who think outside of the box?  I can see they are no longer getting involved in these type of unfounded and unnecessary discussions.  Hours of work down the drain, people.  What a waste. I really do regret ever contributing anything here for so many people whose only desire is to delete others' work.  Follow the policy, not your own personal perspectives.  I realize that the policies are not consistently enforced, but the inflexibility reflected just becomes more and more obvious with each deletion request of articles that I have created. Daniellagreen (talk)  (cont)  15:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to add, please put up all articles that I've created for deletion. They should not be included in this organization. Daniellagreen (talk)  (cont)  16:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you will find that Keep !votes go farther if they respond to the actual issues raised by concerned editors. I see no response whatever to the lack of notability or reliable sources. There are lots of links in the above comments. Please take a look at our guidelines and policies. If you really want to delete your other articles, you can request deletion by blanking them and then adding the tag Db-g7 inside a set of – . Please note: YOU MAY ONLY DO THIS IF NO OTHER EDITORS HAVE MADE ANY SUBSTANTIVE EDITS ON THE ARTICLE. Finally, the merits or lack thereof of other articles is not a defense in AfD. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. It is the rhetorical equivalent to "But mom, Tim did the same thing and HE DIDN"T GET GROUNDED!" -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ad Orientem, You've obviously missed my point. I understand about the tags that you added to the article, however it was put up for deletion because of Orange Mike's views about promotionalism regarding the Gernatt Family.  Certainly, three mentions of Gernatt, Sr. and a mention of his wife, Flavia, could be trimmed down, and already have been.  So, to me, that negates the issue about why it was put up for deletion in the first place.  Orange Mike should put up the other 9 St. Joseph Parish articles throughout the world for deletion, as well, for lack of notability.  I see that most of you are entering into this ongoing issue and aren't quite aware of all of the history, however I'm already past wits end with wasting my time and effort here.  I'm tired of the articles I've creating being singled out for deletion due to political perspectives.  That's the bottom line, and that's what you've missed for the past 4 months.  That is also why I'm no longer very active here - too much ugliness, negativity, and politics.  This is why I just see this as more of the same.  It just gives those editors who are eager to delete and be so exceedingly ugly the opportunity to do so, as evidenced particularly by those who have a history of tracking my edits, and reflected by their contributions in this discussion.  That's why I say delete everything; I'm sorry I've contributed anything here. -Just fyi so you're up to date. Daniellagreen (talk)  (cont)  18:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you have ignored every word I wrote, as also the well reasoned comments by other concerned and highly experienced editors, instead opting for histrionics, I see no point in continuing this conversation. The reviewing Admin will weigh the arguments and the chips will fall where they will. If you choose to leave the project, you do so with my sincere regret, but also my best wishes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Of the other parishes, 5 are listed in the National Register of Historic places; if  you examine Wikipedia, most individual churches  included here are included for this reason. There's one on the Register in Raywick KY that should have an article. The other two in the US have very concise articles--had this been written similarly, it would not have attracted attention. The one in the UK, is one of the earliest Jesuit churches in the 19th century after they returned to England. There are probably a few hundred others in various countries, of which a few might be notable.  DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I find no evidence of any substantial mention of this parish sufficient to help establish notability in the archives of the Western New York Catholic, the newspaper of the diocese of Buffalo, although, admittedly, I am not at all sure how far back those archives go. Nor do I find any significant mentions in the NewsBank database, which includes the Buffalo News newspaper. On the basis of the above, while I think that the article may well still be perhaps notable, given the length of time that the subject has existed and the amount of information which has likely been written about the town and its infrastructure over that time, I have not seen the sources which clearly establish notability. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, it is full of fluff. However, it was originally part of a parish founded by the Passionists - very shortly after they arrived in North America. It is the only Catholic church in Gowunga and for (nearly 10) miles around. The parish covers a large area. Yes, it is a local church, but it is a significant local church, paid for by a notable person. There is a vast amount of fluff, but that is no reason to delete the article. Once it has been radically downsized, only including information from neutral independence sources such as The Early History of Gowanda and the Dunkirk The Observer, I think notability would be clearer. Pjposullivan (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Response Your comment seems to ignore the one fatal flaw with this article. There are a lot of things that can be fixed in articles that are not up to scratch. Even gross promotionalism is often fixable. But you can't fix notability. It's either there or it isn't. Nothing in your comment points to anything that rings the notability bell. The lack of in depth coverage from reliable independent sources cannot be overlooked without chucking N out the window. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Response: On the contrary, I think that the church is mentioned sufficiently in independent, neutral and verifiable sources to be notable, such as A Historical Sketch of Gowanda, The Dunkirk Observer article and a Gowanda News article. Furthermore, as per WP:LOCAL, I am surprised that the article was not labelled local so that it could be merged into Gowanda, New York. Pjposullivan (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: The Historical Sketch book barely gives four tiny paragraphs about the church + cemetary, whereas nearly all of the other churches in the book get several pages. The Gowanda News "article" is not an article, it's just a photo, and is a press release to boot. You've not given proof of anything substantive actually in the Dunkirk Observer nor even provided a title. "paid for by a notable person" -- huh? Peter Rink doesn't have a wiki article, nor even a mention in the entire encyclopedia except for this article. If you are personally recommending merge into Gowanda, New York, your !vote should be Merge rather than Keep. Softlavender (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Softlavender. The coverage from the historical journal is trivial. The photo-caption doesn't even rank that high. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add: As far as "It is the only Catholic church in Gowunga and for (nearly 10) miles around." I presume you mean Gowanda, which is a village of only ~2,500, so what earthly reason would there be to have more than one? The diocese has 166 parishes (and by the way none of them except this has a wiki article). Softlavender (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Response I would hope that 'The diocese has 166 parishes (and by the way none of them except this has a wiki article).' is not being given as a reason for its deletion. Pjposullivan (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is not in and of itself an argument for deletion. It is however strong supporting evidence for the argument that this parish has no reasonable claim to notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment the article has been radically downsized, removing any promotional aspects. Pjposullivan (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur. The promotionalism has been dealt with. Yet again though, it must be pointed out that the fatal flaw remains notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The church website mentions "Our beginnings go back to 1855 when a Franciscan Friar arrived from Ellicottville to offer Mass with the four Catholic families living in the village." This franciscan friar happens to be Pamfilo of Magliano. Perhaps some significance there? - NQ (talk)  19:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional reading: "The Catholic Church in Southwestern New York” by Joseph Z. Aud and Clair L. Hodnett -   (the last one talks about the establishment of this particular parish) - NQ  (talk)  21:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's worth adding and wikilinking the full name, since per your citations it's the correct person. Even though it's slightly WP:OR, it's some sleuthing that could be significant. Need to cite the full name with at least two of those refs, because none of them give the full connection, with all the relevant detail, between him and Gowanda. (My only concern is that these citations may appear to be coverage of the parish and add an appearance of notability, but notability of the parish as a whole is for this consensus to decide.) Softlavender (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The claim that Pamfilo of Magliano visited Gowanda to offer mass is sourced solely to the church website and not mentioned anywhere else, not even in the material I linked. The timeline seems to corroborate but is insignificant as this happened before the establishment of any kind of a church and is not directly related to this particular parish. I'm more interested in 's rationale regarding the Passionists(source) and whether it is a factor in ascertaining notability. - NQ (talk)  00:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The untrimmed full-size version of the wiki article sourced it to the unviewable 2003 SJC directory (and it is still also sourced to that, if you see the end-of-sentence citations), but I've been routinely substituting or adding viewable sources for the non-viewable ones, where possible, on this article, given the less-than-reliable article creator, and given the enormous reference bloat, etc. Agree the connection is hard to establish otherwise; I've just now Googled every variation of the monk's first name or town name, plus Gowanda, and have not been able to come up with anything. The stuff on the Passionists is interesting, but IMO probably belongs on that article, not really this. They probably established a lot of non-notable parishes, which, as the source you give admits, came and went and kept changing names/seats, etc. Softlavender (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If there were a List of parishes in the Catholic Diocese of Buffalo, I would suggest merging the relevant content there. Alternately, it may not be unreasonable to merge the content to Gowanda, New York. But as it stands I don't see that the notability requirement has necessarily been met here. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Establishment of this parish is detailed in this book and is mentioned in snippet view in this one . Froggerlaura  ribbit 03:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes (and good find) on the first source; no on the second, which is only about Fredonia and Dunkirk, not this Gowanda parish. Softlavender (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the first source is a great find for the purpose of verifying or adding factual material. Unfortunately, I don't think it can be counted for the purpose of establishing notability. It is an affiliated source and as far as I can tell it probably discusses the history (up to the early 1900s) of every Roman Catholic parish in the country. I agree with Softlavender's assessment of the second source. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've used Froggerlaura's find as a source in the article, and it can also be used to cite, replace, verify, or refute any item or citation in the rest of the article. I have also replaced all most all of the non-viewable citations with viewable ones (the viewable ones that were accurate; that little news snippet is not accurate); I really don't like non-viewable citations with this particular group of articles. Softlavender (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2014 (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.