Sanzhar Sultanov ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

(This issue was taken up with the editor who deleted the article, on the talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cirt#Page_.22Sanzhar_Sultanov.22_deleted.3F The editor, User:Cirt, refused to answer the comments that requested clarification of his/her decision to delete the article. The editor misinterpreted the AfD discussion, and an attempt was made to clarify the discussion, but the editor refused to answer and directed to this page.)

The article "Sanzhar Sultanov" was deleted. At the AfD, this article was discussed. The major concern was the credibility of the sources. http://www.time.kz was referenced in the article as a source - this particular link http://www.time.kz/index.php?newsid=11338 This website, is the internet version of a national broadsheet newspaper in Kazakhstan known as [Время] ( http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Время), which has a 3,000,000 copy print per issue. It is regarded as one of the most credible newspapers, with sections on Politics, Finance and Entertainment. The article, referenced Sanzhar Sultanov's recent film premiere, detailed a brief biography, and announced the upcoming 2010 feature film The Story, and the article also confirmed that stars Michael Clarke Duncan, Kelly Hu and Paul Calderon are attached. The article also mentioned that the lead role was offered to Harvey Keitel. All this information, was fully cited in the wikipedia article Sanzhar Sultanov. At the AfD discussion, the editors who participated, mentioned that they could not translate the language that the newspaper article was written in, and thus "assumed" that the article was not credible. However - not only is the newspaper, [Время], well-respected - the author of the article, Galina Vibornova, was recently awarded the President of Kazakhstan's award for contributions to media; she is highly respected in the media world on Kazakhstan, and is considered a very objective and diverse journalist.

The editor that deleted the wikipedia article, may have misinterpreted the AfD discussion and made a hasty decision. Since the editor him/herself has refused to review his/her decision, I have taken the matter here. -- 173.33.217.192 ( talk) 20:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. DRV is not AfD round two. I see no problem with Cirt's interpretation of the consensus. Tim Song ( talk) 23:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Several matters here. First, Cirt did not refuse to clarify or answer. He said "Read the AfD". Second, Cirt did not decide to delete the article. The participants at the AfD made that decision. And third, Cirt did not misinterpret the AfD discussion or make a hasty decision. On the contrary, having read the AfD, I'm quite confident that Cirt interpreted the discussion correctly and implemented the decision in full.

  But, when you subtract these false allegations from the nomination statement, there remains a case to answer. The nominator's representation is that a perfectly credible source was dismissed because the AfD participants couldn't understand it, and at first glance, that seems not just possible, but actually quite likely. (You may detect the voice of experience in this remark—I sometimes get very tired of seeing perfectly credible foreign-language sources being ignored by the monolingual.)

  So I think this does bear further investigation, discussion and thought.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 07:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Nom's statement about circulation appears to be inconsistent with the newspaper's own website: [1]. The Gtranslated version of the source is here. In any event, a single source does not notability make. Tim Song ( talk) 07:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The source offered isn't indepth enough and notability remains un-demonstrated. Too much COI POV pushing in my opinion too and the bad faith assertions of the nomination leaves a sour taste in the mouth. I can't see that the AFD was manifestly unfair and efforts were made to examine the non English sources so the closer took the only available option. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse; DRV is not AFD round 2 and if DGG has not been able to find cause to keep the article, that indicates to me a very strong chance that it is not worth keeping. Stifle ( talk) 08:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I would hate to think I have a veto. I've been different from consensus or even dead wrong in both directions; for example, with some types of internet celebrities I've frequently been in a small minority of delete !votes, and I hold what I think is a minority opinion that a person has to actually do something notable; even if there are 2 or 3 or 10 RSs, they have to be for something worth including. I don't think he has done that yet; perhaps he will someday. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply

  I'd never say you have a veto (there was one AFD a while back where I was on the keep side and you were for deletion) but your delete arguments, when you make them, tend to be very persuasive. Stifle ( talk) 08:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I was disappointed by the lack of voting in the XFD but I would have voted delete, so count two deletes there if you wish. I agree with DGG's statement in the XFD that the director has not made a notable film. The sources were also very poor, and the one from Time.kz that may be acceptable is incomprehensible to me. The use of foreign-language sources intrigues me (I'm working on an article about Wikipedia administrators here User:Varks Spira/Wikipedia administrator in which I would like to use foreign-language sources to give the article a world view; help out if you want) but in this case there seems to be hardly any available sources even in the Kazakh language. The Kazakh journalist who wrote the Time.kz celebrity profile perhaps could have an article on WP. The actors in the director's film perhaps could have articles on WP (side cmt: Paul Calderon is overused in the lede and it reads a little silly). I don't think Mr. Sultanov could meet the criteria for articles (which I'm finding very stringent) anytime this year. Maybe next year? Varks Spira ( talk) 19:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Not round 2, closing admin was within discretion. Is it just me (my tracking of AFDs is not exactly comprehensive), or are there more and more quasi-contentious AFDs that are getting closed with insufficient participation regardless? That may signal a deeper problem with our current setup. Ray ^Talk 22:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. Even if the provided Kazahstan Time source was the best in the world, it's still just one single source and that is not enough for notability. The discrepancy in the print run of the publication is also suspicious. WildHorsesPulled ( talk) 20:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• endorse I don't see any other reaosnable way for this to go at the moment. Maybe it can be recreated if more sources are given. JoshuaZ ( talk) 04:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply

St. Joseph Parish, Norwich ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Deletion was entirely unreasonable. -- WlaKom ( talk) 11:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

The merge of this article into the article of Roman Catholic Diocese of Norwich demonstrates complete ignorance and a brief assessment of all sources.

1. The parish is not the same as the Diocese.
2. If church, which is part of the parish is notable, the parish is auto notable.
3. This article is part of the project on the history of Polish immigrants in New England Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in New England and its development and part of the United States history.
4. Nobody replied to my comment, and it should be the most important, and not treat my speech in a disrespectful manner.
5. Most of the comments indicated the lack of knowledge on issues of religion and lack of understanding of the meaning of certain names.
6. Do people in other countries are eligible to decide what is notable for the country?

I repeat my explanation why parish built by immigrants is notable.

My comment Now I will try to explain why I believe that the parish, which was founded by Polish immigrants are very notable. ( Polish: [znakomity, wybitny, godny uwagi] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help))

The parish is not just a group of people, it is the church + cemetery + more than 100 year history of our ancestors (almost half the time the existence of the USA). Churches do not create the story. Church, temple of other religious groups, it is just an empty building and as such should never be considered as a notable. It parishes founded by immigrants formed the history of the United States, what is obvious for US citizens. It is the average immigrants, grouped in parishes, developed the city and created history.

Wikipedia articles are created to broaden our knowledge about the past, discover it, rather than eliminate because it is not widely known at the time. Of course, "parish" will never win with this "exciting" slogans like: sports, entertainment, people, porn stars and local politics. The name "parish" is obviously boring and not interesting for many. But thousands of people browsing the Internet in search of their roots, information on how their ancestors lived. Then travel long distances to these places to see, touch.

I think that "clinging to" the lack of full documentation is irresponsible and demonstrating a lack of respect for history. What sources do you expect? Who was it written?

I personally, for about 10 years, engaged in collecting and updating data on the Polish-American parishes in the U.S. This theme is very pristine and demanding development, and involvement of many people in their expending, as I had hoped, when writing about these parishes. Some parishes are already closed. People I know are too old to give me more information or to indicate the source. There is one priest in Webster, which has a large knowledge of the Polish-American parishes, but now he is elusive.

Recently I started a discussion on "stab" for a parish in the U.S. This would allow to ask people for help in developing these terms. This article and others, marked for deletion, is no distinguishable from the current articles, the Polish-American parishes in the Archdiocese of Boston. Their form and content have been previously discussed with administrators and got the green light for further development. Nobody has ever had to them, any objections. Therefore, it is incomprehensible to me that, at this moment, what is in these articles are not notable? "parish", "Catholic", "Polish". What's changed in terms of writing Wikipedkii? Well because, as I gave the examples, there are many articles with no sources, except outside links to several web sites and I have not seen any discussion on their notability.-- WlaKom ( talk) 11:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• My understanding of the word "parish" is that it refers to a geographical location. Certainly, individual British parishes are notable; they traditionally have a "parish council" (i.e. they are units of local government).

  This implies to me that the consensus at the AfD was in error, but, to what extent does an American parish differ?— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 15:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• These are entirely different; a Catholic parish is the church, its priest and the people who go to it. I doubt they even have defined boundaries. Abductive ( reasoning) 17:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Uncertain As an ecclesiastical unit, I think some parishes are large and important enough to be notable; In the US for Catholic parishes, I would judge, among other things, by the size, and the importance of its activities. (for example this parish sponsors it' own elementary and middle school, but not its own high school. The place to decide this is AfD, or a RfC on the general question. Deletion Review is not really intended for primary discussions of whether things are notable, but for reviewing decisions. Technically, what we seem to be reviewing here is a redirect, instead of using DR--this is highly unusual. Perhaps it's appropriate, but if so, it would be good to get an explicit change of policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs)

  What? This would be opening the door to articles on over 100,000 Catholic parishes, and millions of churches. The fate of individual churches at AfD with no claim to notability is deletion, time and again. Abductive ( reasoning) 17:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

that argument stands in total opposition to NOT PAPER. If there were 10 times that number, we could find space for them, if people write them--that's the only truly limiting factor. fwiw, I probably agree with you that we should not do them, but that is the very model of an invalid reason. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• The DRV filer may not have been clear, but this is a disputed AfD closure - I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph Parish, Norwich as "redirect". ~ mazca ^talk 17:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I modified my statement accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Closing admin - I pretty much stand by my interpretation of the consensus in that discussion as detailed in my closing statement. The consensus there very much seemed to suggest removing the content as insufficiently notable; and I felt that there was decent support for including information about it in Roman Catholic Diocese of Norwich rather than outright deleting it. S Marshall above is correct that a UK parish is generally notable by default given that it's a recognised unit of broad local government - but in this case, a US parish seems to be little more than a very minor sub-unit of the local Catholic church system. I'm confident enough that my close here reflected consensus and the consensus itself was reasonable. ~ mazca ^talk 17:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment This non-notable entity should have been outright deleted, not kept as a redirect. By catering to an editor who does not understand what constitutes an encyclopedic topic and redirecting, the article creator will only be encouraged to continue arguing, as can be seen with this very DRV. Abductive ( reasoning) 17:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse AfD close. That said, I feel we should consider granting these an exertion to WP:N if they include 2 or more schools. In that case they are a lot like a school district (in addition to other things) and so likely should be kept as an organization scheme if nothing else. Had I seen the AfD I'd have argued so. But this not being AfD2, I have no option but to endorse the closer's reading of the discussion. Hobit ( talk) 18:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Yup, on the understanding that a US parish isn't a geographical location, that'll be an endorse per Mazca's rationale.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 19:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

A US parish is a geographical location; with very exceptions, all parishes are specific territorial circumscriptions. -- Paularblaster ( talk) 22:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Is that true? How do they decide these boundaries? If you go to the wrong church, do they let you know? Or is it just for school attendance purposes? Abductive ( reasoning) 15:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I find no clear error in the close. DRV is not AfD round 2. Tim Song ( talk) 19:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the closure. I say this without offering an opinion on any generalized discussion that may follow concerning notability of parishes in general. If a different consensus emerges, the page can always be restored then. But for now, the consensus was not to keep as a separate article, and mazca's interpretation falls well within the range of admin discretion we've seen in previous AFD closes. Ray ^Talk 19:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Query: What would the correct forum be for the discussion of whether articles on parishes are suitable, and whether this particular parish might not, after all, have sufficient notability for its own entry? Even here, a number of people have presented the argument here that a parish is "just a church", or "not a geographical location", or that allowing one article on a parish opens the door to lots of other articles on churches, temples, synagogues, etc. (something I would certainly welcome, but that's neither here not there). If people are going to decide on the basis of "it being a parish", they should know what a parish is: a parish does have exact geographic circumscription, it has temporal continuity (the one in question is over a century old, in Europe there are parishes of much greater antiquity), it has a specific legal status in canon law enjoining rights and duties on the parish priest and on the parishioners, even those who go to church elsewhere (in some jurisdictions a parish even has specific legal status in civil law), and it typically provides a range of religious, charitable, educational and social services, often through separate buildings or locations at some distance from the parish church itself. It is in many ways the ecclesiastical equivalent of a village, rather than of a village hall. This particular parish has a substantial parish history written by an internationally respected historian, a fair degree of coverage in the Hartford Courant going back at least 60 years, and recent TV coverage of its school's charitable activities (all coming to light just during the AfD). If this doesn't amount to a minimal claim to notability I'm not sure what does, so I certainly think it's a discussion worth having. -- Paularblaster ( talk) 22:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. It should be noted that the nominator at AfD was declaredly bringing this as a "test case" after the disputed prodding of a whole series of articles on Polish immigrant parishes, rather muddying the waters as to whether the discussion was about "parishes" or "this parish" (my own feeling is that not all parishes are notable, but that a case can be made that this one is). -- Paularblaster ( talk) 22:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

From autor

1. The Parish is not, only, a geographical place, but a religious organization.
2. Articles concerning the Parish, specifically, are the stubs to describe the establishment of centers of immigration in the United States.
3. These parishes included in the array Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in New England, as a whole, not just part of the Diocese of Norwich, but also part of a Polish parishes abroad (some operated by religious Polish convents) and can not be used only as part of the article on the Diocese of Norwich, or selectively.
4. In Poland, all parishes are notable.
5. So we remove them all or leave all, since it is only the beginning of my project, which includes all Polish parishes in the U.S..
6. Today, based on the decision of "User: Marca," the same "User: Fram", began to liquidate the following parishes in this list.
7. Question to clarify the issue: Are Islamic Center of East Lansing and Dawes Road Cemetery, as a samples, are notable, if Yes, why?

-- WlaKom ( talk) 20:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments - In general, parishes of the Catholic church are fairly regularly defined. However, the issue of notability relates specifically to WP:NOTABILITY. To demonstrate that these parishes are notable, what one would have to do is provide reliable sources to establish their notability. Personally, coming from this issue as a Christian, I would personally write articles on the churches, which are what defines the parish in almost all cases, rather than on the parish itself. It is generally much easier to find information in reliable sources about the church itself. The material on the parishes the churches are connected with can be easily integrated into that article. But, and here I speak from a little experience, parish boundaries change rather often, depending on population factors, and an article on the parish itself would probably have to deal with those changes, which are basically of fairly little if any real encyclopedic utility. I'd suggest writing articles instead on the churches themselves and integrating the relevant material on the parishes into those articles. Doing so would also probably be more in line with the existing wikipedia standard, as articles are generally written about the church building, which some additional information on the parish, rather than on the parish itself. John Carter ( talk) 21:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Question Could you indicate the definition of the Parish?-- WlaKom ( talk) 17:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Note that Islamic Center of East Lansing has, in fact, been proposed for deletion. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Moot There was no consensus to delete and the article was not deleted. There is no bar to further work upon the topic as additional sources and content are added. Colonel Warden ( talk) 00:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• In countries where religious parishes are the same as civil parishes (like apparently the UK), an article on the parish (both elemenets combined) is acceptable as part of our total geographic coverage. In countries where parishes are a purely religious division, distinct from the civil geographical location (like in the USA and many other countries), they don't fit in the "geographical location" exemption generally applied to WP:N, and should be shown to be notable on their own. A redirect is of course a perfectly acceptable outcome of the AfD. I'll take the other similar parish articles created by this author to RfD of something similar to get a consensus that those as well are better of redirected. Fram ( talk) 07:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• WP:ND3 Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• A discussion on the talk page to establish consensus to merge, demerge, or anything in between would be the correct venue for this. Stifle ( talk) 08:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply

there is one easy case where an article can be justified, but it does not apply here: when the parish is cerntered around a church that is historically notable, an article can be written based on the church building and covering some additional background. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse redirect with freedom to merge, clear consensus against a separate article. The specifics of the merger, a content decision, should be discussed at Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Norwich or other relevant page. Flatscan ( talk) 02:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse redirect. The problem with the article on the parish is that parishes are, in effect, local organizations which are not presumed to be notable. Rather, the supporters of having such an article need to establish the parish's notability, which had not yet been done at the time of the AfD. It may indeed be possible to establish notability for this parish, however. To do this, I would recommend drafting a new version of the article in userspace, including multiple specific citations of facts to books, newspapers, etc. Once the draft is ready, it can be moved back into the mainspace. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. A higher standard is being suggested for a parish with thousands of members than a running back. You are going to tell me that the running back is "notable" by virtue of being employed by the NFL. (and nevermind his stats) Whoopee. We seem to have especially low standards for athletes, musicians, and high schools, but very very high standards for religious groups. Why? This was a stub article. They sponsor a school. (BTW, this in no way intended to suggest anything but good faith on the part of the admin who called the closure). Student7 ( talk) 01:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• My final statement. Reading the text of some people, I am beginning to doubt the credibility of the articles on Wikipedia and people who makes decision.

Decisive vote on whether the article for a country of around 300 million people, is notable, have those who have no idea what a " parish", " national parish" is. People like "User: Abductive", whose main argument is "This would be opening the door to articles on over 100,000 Catholic parishes, and millions of churches.". Previously, User talk:Fram#dePRODing of articles, repeatedly vandalized, or abusing the Administrator power, without prior discussion of individual articles.

I also noticed that some people are trying to push through the merge of the national parish into the diocese (two completely independent articles), totally do not understand what it means to "merge".

Although there are people who are trying to steer them to the correct line of thinking, but it does not reach them. They know only "delete, merge, re-direct.

I have the right to think that most of these statements has the characteristics of religious ignorance or religious discrimination.

I believe that further discussion of this type are useless and unreliable to make a decision.

Therefore, I demand the following:

1. Move this discussion to a wider forum for religious articles. (I don't know which one would the best)
2. In that forum, get census, are parishes and other religious organizational units are notable, or not?
3. Get census, are parishes and other religious organizational units are encyclopedic, or not?
4. Restore the articles discussed in this discussion to the original version.
5. Cessation of further merge, redirect and removal, until the above census.
6. Examine the behavior of "User: Fram" arising from the possession of the power of the Administrator.

Sincerely. -- WlaKom ( talk) 10:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply

1. Could someone please go to User talk:WlaKom and explain to him some basic principles of discussion on Wikipedia? I don't lind him defending his articles, but he should really stop attacking editors when those attacks have previously been dismissed by everyone else, even on WP:ANI ( Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#Vandalism by Administrator:Fram). His cries of "religious discrimination" and "vandalizing admin" are getty very old, and I have not used any "admin powers" in this dispute. Fram ( talk) 10:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply