Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Casimir Roman Catholic Parish (Yonkers, New York)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. The Catholic Church most certainly does not have any authority over Wikipedia's content guidelines, and I'm quite certain they have never claimed that they do. While the Catholic Church as an institution certainly has many notable aspects, consensus here seems to favor the view that this particular parish is not one of them.

talk) 20:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

St. Casimir Roman Catholic Parish (Yonkers, New York)

St. Casimir Roman Catholic Parish (Yonkers, New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merely being associated with a particular ethnic group is not sufficient notability for a parish, and that is really the only datum of note given for the parish. The author of the article is relying on a notability guideline which he wrote himself and which in my opinion has not been subjected to sufficient scrutiny by the larger community. Note that this nomination is related to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 26#Catholic parishes in the United States as essentially every page in the category subtree is subject to the same criticism. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some kind of crusade against the Catholic Church or religious discrimination or religious intolerance?
Since this is another attempt to minimize the information about the Catholic Church.
See previous explanation: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Parishes and churches notability.
Also similar request has been closed:
talk) 22:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The similar request specifically imposed "no obligation to wait before renominating individual articles for deletion." And as I said above your proposed notability guideline has not been subjected to adequate scrutiny. Whatever rules apply to Catholic parishes would also apply to Anglican and Orthodox parishes, not to mention Protestant congregations of all sorts, so a discussion restricted to one WikiProject and commented on by a single person requires a much more general discussion. Mangoe (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • but parishes almost never will be, and I certainly don't want to see articles about every parish of any denomination, and similar comments proof more and more about religious intolerance at enWiki.--
      talk) 09:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Sadly it appears that any opposition will provoke accusations of religious intolerance from WlaKom, who appears to be unable to distinguish opposition to countless articles about non-notable subjects from opposition to the Catholic Church. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
to countless articles - how many? It's probably a big joke that some people considered the religious authorities and want to decide on the notability of the Church objects having a hundred million followers. I agree about "Sadly", but referred to luck of understanding "Roman Catholic Church" and its organization. Also, to selectively ignore, the notability of Catholic Church objects. If any religion recognizes that rocks or hills are very important, they must be notable also for all on Wikipedia if the articles referred to this faith. Once more, none of us has right or legal attitudes to different interpretations. Is that clear?--
talk) 15:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
No, sorry, none of that is clear. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that WlaKom is trying to say that if it is recognized by the Catholic Church, it ought to be
notable to Wikipedia by default. Is that what you are saying, Wlakom? (BTW, I disagree with this stance.) LadyofShalott 02:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
If that's what he is saying then yes, I clearly disagree with it too. What we consider notable is not dictated by what outside agencies consider notable, since somebody is going to consider pretty much everything notable. That's why we have notability guidelines and AfDs. Just because the Roman Catholic Church is a vast organisation does not mean that everything to do with it is by default notable. Many things are, many things aren't. And accusing those who express an opposed opinion of being religiously intolerant or anti-Catholic is neither true nor helpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
if it is recognized by the Catholic Church - wrong. It is the Roman Catholic Church law which can not be interpreted differently.
somebody is going to consider pretty much everything notable - also wrong. Not somebody, but one of the biggest Church on the world and its Canon Law. I am just messenger.--
talk) 15:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry, that is not clear - what is "the Roman Catholic Church law" to which you refer? LadyofShalott 16:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So hang on, WlaKom, you're saying that we should be dictated to by the Roman Catholic Church? If the RC Church considers it to be notable then it's notable? And then you claim it's "canon law"? Are you therefore claiming that Roman Catholic canon law has some authority over Wikipedia? These claims get more outlandish as we go along! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep Well-written and sourced article. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether the subject's notable or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it meets the notable requirements, but barely. They own a listed historic building, and is a community organisation. 82.41.27.12 (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The John Copcutt Mansion, which is the building in question, has its own article as you can see. I think that simply owning/using it is not notable. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If I err here, it'll be on the inclusionist side. In my opinion (and I've read through the discussion linked above, which has not led to any consensus or guidelines AFAIK), parishes do rise to a certain level of notability. Dioceses are (practically speaking) automatically notable, so are towns and villages, and without wanting to establish jurisprudence here, let's say that at least there is some sourcing here, and some claim to notability (even if "just" in an "ethnic" sense...). Parishes are important elements in the organizational scheme of the RC Church, and as such they have relevance for us. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The implication of that is that every congregation is notable. Mangoe (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Drawing out that implication is your activity, not mine: a congregation is not the same thing as a parish. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then the implication is that every parish is notable. —Lowellian (reply) 17:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A congregation and a parish are not really different on this level; either is the organizational component standing behind a church building. Mangoe (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St._Casimir_Roman_Catholic_Parish_(Yonkers,_New_York)&oldid=1073005398"