The result was keep. Copyright violations should be cleaned up, but copyright violations in themselves are not an argument for deletion, unless the entire article is a blatant copyright violation per CSD G12. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 02:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
With greatest respect to Rani Maria Vattalil, she appears to have been a nun of local great significance, but without significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As for the "Servant of God" assertion, I can find no mention of this in the archives of L'Osservatore Romano. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 ( talk) 14:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC) reply
why reliable preferred for deletion,not unreliable
BEFORE NEGOTIATING DELETION OF this article
you should check UNRELIABLE ARTICLES LIKE Thoma of Villarvattom,which looks funny and which doesnot even exist.i would call it an article on people who never even exist.i would call Thoma of Villarvattom, a ghost article " you have to first negotiate deletion of ghost articles about people whose existence has never happened or imagined by certain people." Users of wikipedia should not show interest in deleting reliable articles -- Johnyjohny294 ( talk) 07:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)-- Johnyjohny294 ( talk) 07:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC) reply
i can point out thousands of article like this-- Johnyjohny294 ( talk) 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC) reply
and moreover
L'Osservatore Romano online is not the place to search for list of servants of god.for that you have to contact vatican tribunals directly or syro malabar church. i can give you certain indian newspapers links for the same God’s own saints
i dont know whether this will satisfy you
it would be better if somebody remove that deletion tags and for your information i subscribe vatican newspapers. -- Johnyjohny294 ( talk) 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)-- Johnyjohny294 ( talk) 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Copyright violations should be cleaned up, but copyright violations in themselves are not an argument for deletion, unless the entire article is a blatant copyright violation per CSD G12. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 02:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
With greatest respect to Rani Maria Vattalil, she appears to have been a nun of local great significance, but without significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As for the "Servant of God" assertion, I can find no mention of this in the archives of L'Osservatore Romano. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 ( talk) 14:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC) reply
why reliable preferred for deletion,not unreliable
BEFORE NEGOTIATING DELETION OF this article
you should check UNRELIABLE ARTICLES LIKE Thoma of Villarvattom,which looks funny and which doesnot even exist.i would call it an article on people who never even exist.i would call Thoma of Villarvattom, a ghost article " you have to first negotiate deletion of ghost articles about people whose existence has never happened or imagined by certain people." Users of wikipedia should not show interest in deleting reliable articles -- Johnyjohny294 ( talk) 07:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)-- Johnyjohny294 ( talk) 07:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC) reply
i can point out thousands of article like this-- Johnyjohny294 ( talk) 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC) reply
and moreover
L'Osservatore Romano online is not the place to search for list of servants of god.for that you have to contact vatican tribunals directly or syro malabar church. i can give you certain indian newspapers links for the same God’s own saints
i dont know whether this will satisfy you
it would be better if somebody remove that deletion tags and for your information i subscribe vatican newspapers. -- Johnyjohny294 ( talk) 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)-- Johnyjohny294 ( talk) 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC) reply