Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Olav's Church, Serampore


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

St. Olav's Church, Serampore

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An ordinary nineteenth century parish church, with no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only references given are a Google map showing where the church is, and a page telling us that the church has been restored and encouraging us to visit it. This does not constitute the kind of substantial coverage required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - In an earlier form it had much copvio content which was removed, but nothing of that appeared to be capable of being salvaged as no independent support could be found. In its current form it is a very short stub with no evidence of any notability. The only good source that I could locate was here but I don't believe that this source, on its own, is sufficient to support notability ("multiple reliable sources") and it was also the source of the copyvio text.  Velella  Velella Talk 14:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Too bad, really. A 210-year-old church, that's more than the whole church history of some countries.
 * The National Museum source mentioned above states that this is "one of the most significant relics of the time when Serampore was under Danish management", so it does seem to have some historic significance.
 * The fact that a good source has previously been misused for copyvio does not mean we can't use it as a source now, does it? --84.190.88.113 (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I sympathise with your view - if this was in New Zealand it would be a listed building. It is also true that some parts of the world have poorer Wikipedia coverage because of the lack of library and documentation resources. However, that doesn't get around the fundamental issue of multiple reliable sources to demonstrate notability. I personally would rate this much more highly than most (all?) Manga comics and most Rappers, but those are just a very few of my personal prejudices. If you can dig out some reliable references, I would be content to revisit my opinion. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk  15:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know what you mean about Manga comics and rappers, not to mention third-class starlets of all sorts. :-)
 * Just a question: Which notability guidelines specifically are you referring to that require "multiple" sources? I tried to find guidelines on churches or similar buildings but couldn't find any. --84.190.88.113 (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – The topic meets WP:GNG per the source examples listed below. Another secondary option is to merge to Tin Bazar. North America1000 15:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * National Museum of Denmark
 * The Times of India
 * The Times of India
 * NDTV
 * India Today
 * The Times of India.


 * Comment - the merge suggested above might be an acceptable way forward subject to the nominator's agreement .  Velella  Velella Talk 15:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wow, four sources! This is starting to look hopeful.
 * Considering the small amount of content in the Tin Bazar article, I don't think I would favor a merger. There seems to be enough information on the church to justify an article of its own. If we put all the available content into that Tin Bazar article, it would pretty much overwhelm that article and turn it into a church article.
 * Wrote this before I saw that you had in the meantime deleted the "merge" proposal". --84.190.88.113 (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – An easy keep really, the monument is obviously notable. The National Museum of Denmark site has plenty of content that can be used for article content without copy vio if written properly. I've just added a section on its architecture, for example, based on what is on the museum's website. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Pluses: can be sourced; possibly notable architecture. Minuses: not a national historic site or equivalent; church bells are not in use; no evidence of a musical programme; neither a cathedral nor a basilica; no synod has ever been heard there; no notable saint has ever been documented there; no relic or icon is held there. On the whole, I'd lean to deletion. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh sure, and there are so many Lutheran churches that document saints and hold relics or icons. Excuse me for saying this, but you must be kidding.
 * And where is the notability guideline that requires church bells to be ringing for a church to be notable, or for it to be a cathedral or a basilica? --Josy (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are no guidelines, so I created, several years ago, my own standards, which you can take or leave. For what it's worth, I'm not myself a Lutheran, but I have two in-laws who were raised Lutheran and who are married to my two sisters. I'm not totally unaware of Lutheranism. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if that is so, why are you demanding such absolutely un-Lutheran concepts like saints, icons, and relics for a church to be notable? Are you trying to reduce the number of Lutheran churches on Wikipedia to zero? --Josy (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As I indicated, I have no "axe to grind" against Lutheran churches. I'm just trying to be objective. Since you suggested it, I've amended my standards to state, "For churches lacking traditional indicia, or those that are iconoclastic, the age and architectural style of the building would be more heavily weighted factors." Bearian (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep significant surviving building from the old Danish colony in India. Article needs expansion; sources exist in part because the National Museum of Denmark is now restoring the building.  See here: .E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – The building had a reward from UNESCO Asia-Pacific Awards for Cultural Heritage Conservation in september 2016: 2016 UNESCO Asia-Pacific Heritage Award WinnersViking59 (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Both for the UNESCO award and as a relatively early example of a church in north India. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Churches dating from 1806 are generally notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2016 (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.