Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph Parish, Norwich


 * 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   redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Norwich. The history has been left intact to allow a merge of relevant information: the overall consensus is that there has been insufficient substantial coverage to demonstrate sufficient notability for a separate article. Those arguing for deletion, while they have fairly convincingly demonstrated that this is does not warrant a separate article at this time, have not really refuted the suggestion to merge any relevant content to the diocese's article. ~ mazca  talk 21:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

St. Joseph Parish, Norwich

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

After a large number of articles on parishes were created, I nominated these for deletion through ProD because of a lack of notability. This is contested by the author (claiming that I have to prove that they are not notable), so I bring one of those here as a testcase (I can't do a mass nomination anyway because they may have varying degrees of notability). So, this one: it has four sources, but e.g. the first one is a pure listing in passing The article, despite the four sources, has no info on what would make this parish notable. A reasonable number of Google News searches, but they only give us local coverage, most of it in passing. Fram (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as it currently stands. I'm not sure that a parish meets the notability threshhold the way that a geographic entity such as a village does.  -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A parish is a relatively stable geographic entity, much like a village. The more I think about it, the more I begin to think that a parish (like a village, a regiment, or a high school) is a perfectly acceptable topic in itself, as long as we have sources for the article. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm inclined to think that the Dictionnaire d'histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques should be our guide in this: treat parishes in the article on the city or the diocese. This could then be a redirect. Unless, of course, it's a parish that is itself a subject of multiple third-party sources, even though the references currently fail to reflect that. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if this is really feasible (or wanted) though. Dioceses have many, many parishes, e.g. Charleston has 117 parishes, Marquestte has 88, Tyles has 69, Los Angeles has 305... Overall, there are apparently over 20,000 parishes in the US alone. Fram (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then, not being paper, we can split out "Parishes in the diocese of Charleston" (or wherever) when the section threatens to overburden the main article on the diocese. Is your point that parishes should each be a separate article (like towns and villages)? I think that would be even more unmanageable. --Paularblaster (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Editing to add: I hadn't noticed that you were the nominator, so presumably you aren't arguing that parishes should have their own articles, and I'm at a loss as to what your point is. --Paularblaster (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that they should definitely not have separate articles (unless they are notable), and should generally not be mentioned in other articles either. However, if the consensus is that mentioning them in the city article, or creating a list for them, is the way to go, then I have no fundamental problem with that. I don't see the point of a list of subjects that are by themselves not notable, chances are that it will become a directory and nothing more, but it is acceptable. The article we are discussing here is already listed in Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in New England (just like the other ones I tried to ProD), and I am not nominating that list for deletion. Fram (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Turns out a Polish professor wrote a book of over 300 pages about the history of this particular parish. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A book written especially for its 75th birthday, without a publisher? That's not really an independent source, isn't it? Fram (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC) You can see his similar book about another parish, written for the centennial, published by that parish. These seem to be books on command, made for the parish to celebrate a jubilee. They can be used as a source once a subject is sufficiently notable, but they can normally not be used to establish the notability. Apart from that, good catch, I hadn't noticed that source. Fram (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's often the way with parish histories - they're written for centenaries/anniversaries. In this instance the calibre of the author should also count. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems to be just another church and fails WP:N.  young  american  (wtf?) 13:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. fails WP:N - I don't considered the book significant. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify why not? Most village, high school and regimental histories are not "independent" in the sense we would like, but that doesn't disqualify them as sources. A parish history written by an internationally well-regarded academic historian is not an everyday kind of source. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am the author of the articles about Polish ethnic parishes in New England, which are part of Polish and Polish immigrants in the U.S.(about 2 million) history. Before I give a detailed explanation, please give me an interpretation of the following rules Wikipedia:
 * 1. From Discrimination

Notability guidelines. Some information may be notable for some groups of people and not notable for other. For example football may not be notable for most women and articles and content about notable women, or concerning women in other way, may not be interesting and in this way notable for most of men. Also some notable content for Afro Americans may not be notable for some white Americans. Etc. In such case when a topic is concerning specifically one group, especially when it is misrepresented in Wikipedia and is a minority editors group, or it is a minority group within English speakers, or is in other way a minority group, notability issues should reflect the idea of "notability for this group" and in this case Wikipedia Discrimination policy may be used against the Notability guideline as a stronger rule.
 * 2. Notability . Is the subject notable? Yes or No. If No - end of discussion. If Yes - then we can discuss about sources.

What is not notable in the St. Stanislaus Bishop & Martyr's Parish, Chicopee. This is one of the articles selected for removal, and there are 78. Sincerely, --WlaKom (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * wp:discrimination is a proposal and is neither a guideline or a policy. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The first thing to make clear is that nobody is ganging up on WlaKom, nor on Catholics, nor on Poles or Polish Americans. If this was a series of articles about Irish American parishes, or parishes in the Philippines, or Episcopal parishes, Southern Baptist congregations, Masonic lodges or secular humanist associations, the issues would be exactly the same. The second thing is that this is not WlaKom against Wikipedia - we're all just a random bunch of people, a tiny sample of everybody that edits wikipedia, trying to reach consensus about whether wikipedia should include these as separate articles or not. There's a tendency to fall into confrontational rhetoric about whether or not something is suitable for inclusion, but this doesn't really help either side in the discussion. Thirdly, finally, the issue that we have to address here is not "are these institutions important to a particular group of people" (in casu Polish Americans) but rather: are they "notable" in Wikipedia's empirical (but slightly counter-intuitive) sense of "having been taken substantial note of in secondary and tertiary sources". Saying "they aren't notable" is not to say they are not interesting, or not worthwhile, or not valuable, but simply that they have not been noted in substantial ways that we can verify. This means that we have to discuss sources first, in order to establish whether the answer to notability is "yes" or "no". --Paularblaster (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on "that they have not been noted in substantial ways that we can verify" from User:Paularblaster. also, based on I don't considered the book significant from User:Cameron Scott.
 * I have more question related to this issue to understand guidance for notability.
 * All Polish-American parishes (so far 80 I created) are qualify for deletion within 7 days, because there are no differences between them.
 * All of them were built by not notable people in not notable places. Just 100 years old, small unknown organizations used by not notable poor people.
 * What about any cemetery. For example Dawes Road Cemetery Are they notable?
 * What about Muslim objects. Are they notable? For example Islamic Center of East Lansing. Which objects are more notable which less without reliable sources?
 * Should I mark all of them for deletion? There are hundreds religious objects like these. Once finally agree on what kind of religious object are not notable. I can help to do major clean up not notable articles. I count on your support.
 * What kind of articles without any sources are notable? If not, should be marked for deletion?

BTW Seems to be just another church and fails WP:N. User:Youngamerican The parish is not the same as the church. You add your comment to the wrong article.--WlaKom (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: Despite being asked not to do this, user:WlaKom has again canvassed for support for this article in this discussion on the Wikiproject Catholicism talk page. Can someone else try to make it clear to him that this is unacceptable? Perhaps he or she can at the same time make it clear that adding your own unassessed list to a list of featured lists is not correct either... Fram (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

or perhaps to a Wikipedian known for being an expert in a related field and who's shown interest in participating in related discussions. Sincerely, --WlaKom (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked for opinion based on Canvassing.
 * That section starts with "Neutrally worded notifications". Yours wasn't neutrally worded at all... Fram (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * delete, unless independent, reliable sources turn up (I would not call the book that, many subjects have books about them, that does not make them notable). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To quote from the Journal of American Ethnic History, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Spring, 1984), p. 97: "A large part of the history of Polish American community life has been derived from a variety of valuable commemorative works, such as the anniversary “albums” and honorific biographies prepared by local parish committees." Most of these we would be constrained to treat as sources not independent of the subject. Here we have such a work written by an eminent academic ecclesiastical historian. If you read WP:N carefully (and a few other AfD discussions) I think you'll come to the conclusion that whatever the dictionary definition of "notable", on wikipedia "having books about them" pretty much fits the bill. --Paularblaster (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your quote shows that such primary sources (like books commissioned by or published by the parish) are very important to create secondary ones, which is not disputed. However, as long as these secondary sources are not available, it has no place on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep a permanent organization with a substantial history. Though to prove notability really there needs to be something other than a book, perhaps a newspaper article? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a fair amount of coverage in the Hartford Courant - but as it's pay-per-view I'm not sure how substantial it is. --Paularblaster (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I gave these in my opening statement already :-) Fram (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, but I used a slightly different search term that turned up a few article headlines - not just passing mentions. --Paularblaster (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * New sources? According to this snippet demographic and historical research on the parish has been published. The snippet doesn't provide the footnote, so I can't see whether these have already been brought up here or not. Anybody have access to the book? --Paularblaster (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The parish is not just a group of people, it is the church + cemetery + more than 100 year history of our ancestors (almost half the time the existence of the USA). Churches do not create the story. Church, temple of other religious groups, it is just an empty building and as such should never be considered as a notable. It parishes founded by immigrants formed the history of the United States, what is obvious for US citizens. It is the average immigrants, grouped in parishes, developed the city and created history.
 * My comment Now I will try to explain why I believe that the "parishes", which was founded by Polish immigrants are very notable. (Polish: znakomity, wybitny, godny uwagi)

Wikipedia articles are created to broaden our knowledge about the past, discover it, rather than eliminate because it is not widely known at the time. Of course, "parish" will never win with this "exciting" slogans like: sports, entertainment, people, porn stars and local politics. The name "parish" is obviously boring and not interesting for many. But thousands of people browsing the Internet in search of their roots, information on how their ancestors lived. Then travel long distances to these places to see, touch.

I think that "clinging to" the lack of full documentation is irresponsible and demonstrating a lack of respect for history. What sources do you expect? Who was it written?

I personally, for about 10 years, engaged in collecting and updating data on the Polish-American parishes in the U.S. This theme is very pristine and demanding development, and involvement of many people in their expending, as I had hoped, when writing about these parishes. Some parishes are already closed. People I know are too old to give me more information or to indicate the source. There is one priest in Webster, which has a large knowledge of the Polish-American parishes, but now he is elusive.

Recently I started a discussion on "stab" for a parish in the U.S. This would allow to ask people for help in developing these terms. This article and others, marked for deletion, is no distinguishable from the current articles, the Polish-American parishes in the Archdiocese of Boston. Their form and content have been previously discussed with administrators and got the green light for further development. Nobody has ever had to them, any objections. Therefore, it is incomprehensible to me that, at this moment, what is in these articles are not notable? "parish", "Catholic", "Polish". What's changed in terms of writing Wikipedkii? Well because, as I gave the examples, there are many articles with no sources, except outside links to several web sites and I have not seen any discussion on their notability. Sincerely,--WlaKom (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, you seem to be saying we will delete the actual parish, but it will still exist. There will simply be no article on Wikipedia on it. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. School it sponsors was on tv recently. Having ssid that, these parishes are all stub articles and really shouldn't subjected to such close scrutiny without more details, which they clearly need. Churches/parish communities with a building are automatically notable IMO.Student7 (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Norwich, and create spinouts only as required. The information presented is definitely encyclopedic, but stylistically it makes more sense to collate it at a coarser resolution. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Norwich, but I'm content with deleting it, too. JohnWBarber (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are 378 parishes in, for example, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, serving 2,363,000 people. Extrapolating from that, there are about 160,000 Roman Catholic parishes in the world, and presumbably a similar number of non-Catholic parishes. I also note that if we allow articles on non-notable parishes, we would then have to allow articles on every good-sized church, mosque and temple in the world, potentially adding millions of articles to Wikipedia, none of which would be of encyclopedic interest to anybody outside the local area. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete only a single g news hit in an obscure local newspaper, and a couple of off hand notes in g books UltraMagnusspeak 20:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At the least, merge into Roman Catholic Diocese of Norwich.--Pink Bull (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2009 (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.