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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Johns Orthodox Church, Kadammanitta[edit]

St. Johns Orthodox Church, Kadammanitta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod. This seems to be a non-notable church with no independent sources. Article was a sub-stub (without any evidence of notability and a borderline speedy candidate if you consider churches to be a "group" not a "building"). Now the article reads like an advertisement, and there are still no reliable, independent sources. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'll be interested to see how this goes. A church established as far back as 1842 would normally be declared as automatically notable at AfD, in my experience. Churches are established landmarks, have congregations, communal activities and importance to their community as a consequence. However, this article is a car crash in terms of the way it is written, highly promotional in nature and sourced only to the church website. My head says 'delete' but... if one reliable independent source can be located, I'll advocate 'keep and clean up'... Sionk (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to delete it, but if sources can be found, I would be up for helping out with cleaning up. sageinevntor 18:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. most of the article was a copyright violation of the church website and I've removed the offending section. Sionk (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Lack sources; desperate output for a search in google. A church built in 19th century is not an ancient one if we consider the history of Saint Thomas Christians. There are really hundreds of such churches in Kerala. -AshLey ^Msg 12:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - only source is self-referential. Perhaps incubate it until sources can be found? Bearian (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See also User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_historic_churches, for which I don;t think it passes. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Mere age does not make a Church building or the community attached to it notable. (If it did there would probably be 10,000 notable ones in England.) However, if it were one of the earliest in the area it might well be. Some reliable sources which imply notability are a minimum.Jpacobb (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why not redirect? After all they are cheap. This article can be redirected to Kadammanitta. (I am gonna do that on almost all AfDs now.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:27, 23 July 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.