Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph the Betrothed Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

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. John254 01:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[]

St. Joseph the Betrothed Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church[edit]

There is no particular assertion or evidence of notability here. The closest we come is a statement that the church exterior is "known", but given no citation to back that up. The rest of the article deals with fairly routine events in the life of the parish (the various priests, the painting of the walls, the church societies) without anything special coming to light - say, third-party references establishing notability. And of course, it's all given a very positive spin ("a young energetic priest", "this dedicated group of women worked tirelessly", "Now it is time to create a new history for the next fifty years"). But really, this parish seems no different from its thousands of counterparts across Christendom, and thus the article should be deleted. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[]

Weak keep. I am inclined to save the article, if only for the church's structure, which apparently is unlike any other in the world. (I have also gone in and done a ton of cleanup on this article, trimming 1/2 to 2/3 of the material from it; it looks much better now than when it was nominated. Of course, whether it is good enough to save is up to the AfD community.) Un school 08:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[]

Weak keep for the architecture, though I think perhaps it needs even more cutting down to what can be reliably referenced. Alternately, if that ends up being basically a paragraph worth of content, I wouldn't be opposed to merging it into a more comprehensive article, Ecclesiastical architecture of Chicago or something, akin to the Encyclopedia of Chicago article that this article cites. --Delirium (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[]

Comment - I commend the work done since my nomination, making the article at least potentially salvageable. However, I should point out that the villageofjoy.com and oddee.com links are both self-published blogs (reliant on this very article, no less), and thus fail WP:RS. I also find Delirium's idea for an Ecclesiastical architecture of Chicago article intriguing - while several Chicago churches are notable enough to have their own article (actually close to 50 at present), it seems prudent to give a broader view of the subject and fold in some of the more minor ones (such as, I submit, this one) with just an image and a few sentences. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[]

Keep and develop a more comprehensive article as suggested above.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[]

Keep as a major church. Some churches of this sort will be notable, & the current state of the article shows it. DGG (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[]
- Ah, but do multiple, reliable, independent, third-party sources establish notability? The article itself can't do that; we need outside confirmation. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[]

Keep You won't find (m)any third-party sources to establish notability but the the church has at least marginal notability. --Stormbay (talk) 03:25, 7 January 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.