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. czar 22:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic church (Mariupol) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced to just one website. Fails to establish notability and some of the claims, such as when the church was destroyed, are not found in the offered sources. The claims may well be true, but we need to be able to verify them. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per failed GNG. Also, some of the facts in the article seem to be confused with one of the more notable Eastern parishes destroyed in the Soviet period. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a brand new article. From the 1900 photo (which appears to be from a book), i would expect the church to be notable, ie that plenty will have been written about it. But how to search for coverage, because what was it actually called, in what languages? Eg the term "church of the Italians" may never have appeared, it may be a recent translation of an Italian language phrase used in Russian or Ukrainian. I don't imagine it was actually called "Roman Catholic church". No RC church would call itself that, it would likely be named for a saint and covered under that name. Also I see the article creator built it up, but then removed two photos (which do appear to show it as a prominent church) and a passage of text. I don't understand what's going on, would like to hear from the creator. I don't see interaction at their talk page, I only see they were given the abrupt AFD notice, and this is about a new article. Why not make contact first, or is there a lot of history here between editors, say? Also Is there more in any other language Wikipedia? -Doncram (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- It was common for merchant communities in major ports to establish their own church, so that they could be ministered to in their own mother tongue. The article is thus credible, and may have been known locally as the Italian Church, though that would not be its formal name. However I would question whether it was notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I do wish User:ColeB34 would participate in discussion here. FYI, i am not opposed to creation of articles about buildings in Mariupol or elsewhere that have been destroyed; it is well- understood in Wikipedia that "once notable, always notable". Also, the event of destruction of a church could be part of what makes the former church notable. This current event of book burning at an apparently surviving church in Mariupol makes it, the Church of Petro Mohyla or Petro Mohyla Church (named for Petro Mohyla), adds to its notability. I don't see that one in Category:Buildings and structures in Mariupol.--Doncram (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I, too, wish that User:ColeB34 would weigh in here. That user has made recent changes, so it is obvious that the article is not abandoned. Give it some time, or suggest another place to move/merge the information. Radzy0 (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All sources appear to be self-run blogs that provide unclear details regarding the nature of the parish. Besides failing the two reliable-source standard and WP:NOBLOGS, the article must be renamed if we retain this article. "Roman Catholic church" is far too vague and a common name of literally of hundreds of parishes. We should use the parish's actual name, as is the standard for articles like this one. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think sourcing is sufficient for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – At the time I patrolled this article, I needed to choose between draftifying and AfD. The poor sourcing pushed the decision towards deletion discussion. Had the article been in its current state, I may have opted for just tagging. There are still some problems with the sourcing but it's now to the stage where a reader may be able to evaluate the evidence and make their own decision. Except for the evidence trail for this discussion, the redirect left behind from the page move is - as mentioned above - from a not-very-useful title and should perhaps be considered for deletion after this discussion concludes. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A second relist upon requests for User:ColeB34 to participate in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found two additional book sources, added them to the article and cleaned it up. One of the books also refers to "T. Timoshevsky, Mariupol' i ego okrestnosti, Mariupol', 1882 pp. 141-151", which I don't have access to, but ten pages seems like a significant amount of info about the church.--Jahaza (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the additional book sources added to the article since nomination so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2022 (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.