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.
Weak keep. In addition to the Times of India article, I found this book mention. There is also this book, but it looks like it is probably connected with the subject in some way. The first two of these are probably just about enough to keep the article, but I would be happier about keeping it if there were more references. As it is, I would also not mind a merge to Marian apparition. Whatever we do, though, we will need to remove most of the content to solve the point-of-view problems. — Mr. Stradivarius♫18:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Marian apparition or some other similar target. It's a little short on notability - not drastically so - but it's practically impossible to maintain neutrality across lots of little stubs on subjects like this. I applaud the recent edits that have fixed most of the initial neutrality problems, but left unsupervised the problem will surely return. bobrayner (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Do not Merge; as can be seen in 'Marian apparition', even apparitions with Church approval do not have articles. Consensus will need to change before apparitions that have not received such can be given articles. Discussion could be initiated with a WP:RFC at 'Marian apparition'. Anarchangel (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2012 (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.