- 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. Apart from the nominator, no one argued for outright deletion but there was also no consensus to redirect or merge. Both can be proposed on the talk page though. So Why 11:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Iglesia de San Félix (El Pino)
- Iglesia de San Félix (El Pino) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article has remained empty for years except an amateur photo. This minor village church fails GNG and WP:NFEAT. — JFG talk 10:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment -- The Spanish article (which gives a different date) has two more photos and details of architect, builder, and decoration, but most Spanish churches have such decoration and I would need convincing that this is notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Eighteenth-century buildings are pretty much always considered notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Not in Europe. Or else everybody in my town lives in a notable house…
—
JFG
talk 01:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yup, in Europe too. See
WP:GEOFEAT. I'm British, all our (very many) 18C buildings are listed and all are deserving of articles. Same in Spain. And I very much doubt that everyone in your town lives in a house that old. But historic churches are even more deserving of articles. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 11:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Spain doesn't appear to be so good at listing its historic buildings as some countries (we're spoiled by our protectors of national heritage in my country, and a good thing too).
But this one is a listed building. Sixth entry on the list. Meets the criteria of
WP:GEOFEAT without a shadow of a doubt. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 11:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Regardless of how Spain documents its monuments, this particular article has no sourced information; it has no information at all, just a picture. I asserted that it was not notable, although I understand that as a listed monument it gets presumed notability. Fine but it's still an empty article… is that enough? To
Necrothesp, yes in my town a good 80% of houses are pre-18th century; mine was built in the 16th. Only a few buildings are considered locally notable, the usual suspects: church, castle, houses bundled in fortified walls and a few mansions that used to be owned by nobility. I could probably go snap a few pictures of the old town and create empty articles; would that make the depicted houses automatically notable for Wikipedia? I don't think that makes sense. But thanks for the Spanish source saying this church is a listed building. The
article in Spanish cites the monument registry (no other source demonstrating RS coverage btw) BUT it's not the same building on the picture! What shall we do now? —
JFG
talk 13:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's a
WP:STUB. No problem with that. I would agree with you that, despite
WP:GEOFEAT, it can be difficult to make a case for notability for an ordinary house (although again, some countries are better at documenting the history of historic buildings and listing them than others), but a church? Yes, they're notable. There is always something you can write about a church. The issue is not what has been written about it on Wikipedia, but what can be written about it. The difference in photos is indeed odd, but the one on Spanish Wikipedia is the actual church (as you can see by looking on Google Streetview). I've therefore substituted it for the other one. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 13:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like the previous photo is actually a photo of the chapel in the neighbouring village of Pola del Pino. It's been wrongly captioned. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's a
WP:STUB. No problem with that. I would agree with you that, despite
WP:GEOFEAT, it can be difficult to make a case for notability for an ordinary house (although again, some countries are better at documenting the history of historic buildings and listing them than others), but a church? Yes, they're notable. There is always something you can write about a church. The issue is not what has been written about it on Wikipedia, but what can be written about it. The difference in photos is indeed odd, but the one on Spanish Wikipedia is the actual church (as you can see by looking on Google Streetview). I've therefore substituted it for the other one. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 13:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Regardless of how Spain documents its monuments, this particular article has no sourced information; it has no information at all, just a picture. I asserted that it was not notable, although I understand that as a listed monument it gets presumed notability. Fine but it's still an empty article… is that enough? To
Necrothesp, yes in my town a good 80% of houses are pre-18th century; mine was built in the 16th. Only a few buildings are considered locally notable, the usual suspects: church, castle, houses bundled in fortified walls and a few mansions that used to be owned by nobility. I could probably go snap a few pictures of the old town and create empty articles; would that make the depicted houses automatically notable for Wikipedia? I don't think that makes sense. But thanks for the Spanish source saying this church is a listed building. The
article in Spanish cites the monument registry (no other source demonstrating RS coverage btw) BUT it's not the same building on the picture! What shall we do now? —
JFG
talk 13:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Spain doesn't appear to be so good at listing its historic buildings as some countries (we're spoiled by our protectors of national heritage in my country, and a good thing too).
But this one is a listed building. Sixth entry on the list. Meets the criteria of
WP:GEOFEAT without a shadow of a doubt. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 11:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yup, in Europe too. See
WP:GEOFEAT. I'm British, all our (very many) 18C buildings are listed and all are deserving of articles. Same in Spain. And I very much doubt that everyone in your town lives in a house that old. But historic churches are even more deserving of articles. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 11:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Not in Europe. Or else everybody in my town lives in a notable house…
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
_001_2.jpg)
_003_3.jpg)
- Keep. Looks notable to me... see the interior photos. -- do ncr am 17:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to
Asturias; not every church is notable, and this one misses the mark. The article does not establish notability and lists no sources. I was not able to find sufficient sources, and none of the "Keep" voters have offered any.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 22:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- That's purely an opinion that contradicts a guideline! It exists and it is a building heritage-listed by a country that does not list that many buildings. Even if Spain did list many buildings it would still pass WP:GEOFEAT, but in this case it clearly passes it with flying colours! And what on earth would be the point of redirecting to Asturias? That would achieve nothing whatsoever. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 19:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment from OP – I appreciate that the wrong picture was replaced, but until somebody decides to write more than WP:ITEXISTS (oh yeah, and it's listed), this page has no point. — JFG talk 21:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- How about a redirect and merge to the Spanish village,
El Pino (Aller)? That would solve the issue elegantly, just adding photos and saying "The village has a listed church, Iglesia de San Félix, founded in 1751." —
JFG
talk 21:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe you should take a look at WP:STUB! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- How about a redirect and merge to the Spanish village,
El Pino (Aller)? That would solve the issue elegantly, just adding photos and saying "The village has a listed church, Iglesia de San Félix, founded in 1751." —
JFG
talk 21:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Churches more than 200 years old are almost always notable. The fine religious icons inside the church also indicate its notability. Sadly, this article is still unsourced, which would favor deletion. Can somebody rescue this? Bearian ( talk) 16:00, 7 August 2017 (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.
- 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. Apart from the nominator, no one argued for outright deletion but there was also no consensus to redirect or merge. Both can be proposed on the talk page though. So Why 11:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Iglesia de San Félix (El Pino)
- Iglesia de San Félix (El Pino) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article has remained empty for years except an amateur photo. This minor village church fails GNG and WP:NFEAT. — JFG talk 10:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment -- The Spanish article (which gives a different date) has two more photos and details of architect, builder, and decoration, but most Spanish churches have such decoration and I would need convincing that this is notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Eighteenth-century buildings are pretty much always considered notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Not in Europe. Or else everybody in my town lives in a notable house…
—
JFG
talk 01:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yup, in Europe too. See
WP:GEOFEAT. I'm British, all our (very many) 18C buildings are listed and all are deserving of articles. Same in Spain. And I very much doubt that everyone in your town lives in a house that old. But historic churches are even more deserving of articles. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 11:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Spain doesn't appear to be so good at listing its historic buildings as some countries (we're spoiled by our protectors of national heritage in my country, and a good thing too).
But this one is a listed building. Sixth entry on the list. Meets the criteria of
WP:GEOFEAT without a shadow of a doubt. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 11:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Regardless of how Spain documents its monuments, this particular article has no sourced information; it has no information at all, just a picture. I asserted that it was not notable, although I understand that as a listed monument it gets presumed notability. Fine but it's still an empty article… is that enough? To
Necrothesp, yes in my town a good 80% of houses are pre-18th century; mine was built in the 16th. Only a few buildings are considered locally notable, the usual suspects: church, castle, houses bundled in fortified walls and a few mansions that used to be owned by nobility. I could probably go snap a few pictures of the old town and create empty articles; would that make the depicted houses automatically notable for Wikipedia? I don't think that makes sense. But thanks for the Spanish source saying this church is a listed building. The
article in Spanish cites the monument registry (no other source demonstrating RS coverage btw) BUT it's not the same building on the picture! What shall we do now? —
JFG
talk 13:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's a
WP:STUB. No problem with that. I would agree with you that, despite
WP:GEOFEAT, it can be difficult to make a case for notability for an ordinary house (although again, some countries are better at documenting the history of historic buildings and listing them than others), but a church? Yes, they're notable. There is always something you can write about a church. The issue is not what has been written about it on Wikipedia, but what can be written about it. The difference in photos is indeed odd, but the one on Spanish Wikipedia is the actual church (as you can see by looking on Google Streetview). I've therefore substituted it for the other one. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 13:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like the previous photo is actually a photo of the chapel in the neighbouring village of Pola del Pino. It's been wrongly captioned. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's a
WP:STUB. No problem with that. I would agree with you that, despite
WP:GEOFEAT, it can be difficult to make a case for notability for an ordinary house (although again, some countries are better at documenting the history of historic buildings and listing them than others), but a church? Yes, they're notable. There is always something you can write about a church. The issue is not what has been written about it on Wikipedia, but what can be written about it. The difference in photos is indeed odd, but the one on Spanish Wikipedia is the actual church (as you can see by looking on Google Streetview). I've therefore substituted it for the other one. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 13:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Regardless of how Spain documents its monuments, this particular article has no sourced information; it has no information at all, just a picture. I asserted that it was not notable, although I understand that as a listed monument it gets presumed notability. Fine but it's still an empty article… is that enough? To
Necrothesp, yes in my town a good 80% of houses are pre-18th century; mine was built in the 16th. Only a few buildings are considered locally notable, the usual suspects: church, castle, houses bundled in fortified walls and a few mansions that used to be owned by nobility. I could probably go snap a few pictures of the old town and create empty articles; would that make the depicted houses automatically notable for Wikipedia? I don't think that makes sense. But thanks for the Spanish source saying this church is a listed building. The
article in Spanish cites the monument registry (no other source demonstrating RS coverage btw) BUT it's not the same building on the picture! What shall we do now? —
JFG
talk 13:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Spain doesn't appear to be so good at listing its historic buildings as some countries (we're spoiled by our protectors of national heritage in my country, and a good thing too).
But this one is a listed building. Sixth entry on the list. Meets the criteria of
WP:GEOFEAT without a shadow of a doubt. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 11:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yup, in Europe too. See
WP:GEOFEAT. I'm British, all our (very many) 18C buildings are listed and all are deserving of articles. Same in Spain. And I very much doubt that everyone in your town lives in a house that old. But historic churches are even more deserving of articles. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 11:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Not in Europe. Or else everybody in my town lives in a notable house…
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Looks notable to me... see the interior photos. -- do ncr am 17:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to
Asturias; not every church is notable, and this one misses the mark. The article does not establish notability and lists no sources. I was not able to find sufficient sources, and none of the "Keep" voters have offered any.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 22:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- That's purely an opinion that contradicts a guideline! It exists and it is a building heritage-listed by a country that does not list that many buildings. Even if Spain did list many buildings it would still pass WP:GEOFEAT, but in this case it clearly passes it with flying colours! And what on earth would be the point of redirecting to Asturias? That would achieve nothing whatsoever. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 19:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment from OP – I appreciate that the wrong picture was replaced, but until somebody decides to write more than WP:ITEXISTS (oh yeah, and it's listed), this page has no point. — JFG talk 21:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- How about a redirect and merge to the Spanish village,
El Pino (Aller)? That would solve the issue elegantly, just adding photos and saying "The village has a listed church, Iglesia de San Félix, founded in 1751." —
JFG
talk 21:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe you should take a look at WP:STUB! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- How about a redirect and merge to the Spanish village,
El Pino (Aller)? That would solve the issue elegantly, just adding photos and saying "The village has a listed church, Iglesia de San Félix, founded in 1751." —
JFG
talk 21:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Churches more than 200 years old are almost always notable. The fine religious icons inside the church also indicate its notability. Sadly, this article is still unsourced, which would favor deletion. Can somebody rescue this? Bearian ( talk) 16:00, 7 August 2017 (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.