Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mary's Church, Secunderabad


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 19:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

St. Mary's Church, Secunderabad

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable church. I wasn't able to find any third-party sources covering this. Burpelson AFB (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The oldest Catholic church in a major city, not to mention the Cathedral of the arch-diocese of the gigantic city of Hyderabad is most certainly notable. It is confirmed it is one of the oldest churches in the city.  And nominating an article that asserts its notability for deletion within an hour of creation  is bad form and only serves to discourage new editors as well as seasoned ones from editing and improving articles. --Oakshade (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * comment would it be possible to hold this for a longer period. At first glance, this church looks notable, but in order to see this, I need access to subscription only services which have broken down and may not be restored until sometime during week commencing 13 September 2010 (Cambridgeshire Library Services) --Senra (Talk) 11:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * comment see also positive and sympathetic notice placed on inexperienced user 's talk page --Senra (Talk) 12:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The church (former Cathedral) was built in 1847. I think we can safely assume that some kind of coverage is available. I know we need reliable sources, but sometimes sourcing for historical subject is not an easy task. --Jmundo (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some links -  Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The historic importance suggests keeping. However, the serious copyvio needs urgent attention . -- Radagast 3 (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The ongoing copyright violations are a concern; it may be necessary to delete if that continues. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The copyvio situation seems to be resolved by my re-rewriting. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. this search finds plenty of sources such as this. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment- Googles search that finds no reliable sources appears to be more an claim of no notability then a reason to keep. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "finds no reliable sources"? What's unreliable about the book that I linked? Or this one? Or this, this and this?


 * Keep as the church is of historical importance. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per.User:OakshadeAMuseo (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The only sources so far found after considerable research are  and those don't amount to notability. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are certainly other sources, this, for example, and a brief mention in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It's also apparently a heritage-listed building. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2010 (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.