Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph Parish, Gowanda, New York: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary
→‎St. Joseph Parish, Gowanda, New York: We seem to be talking past each other. It's time to move on.
Line 21: Line 21:
:* I think you will find that Keep !votes go farther if they respond to the actual issues raised by concerned editors. I see no response whatever to the lack of notability or reliable sources. There are lots of links in the above comments. Please take a look at our guidelines and policies. If you really want to delete your other articles, you can request deletion by blanking them and then adding the tag Db-g7 inside a set of {{}}. Please note: YOU MAY ONLY DO THIS IF NO OTHER EDITORS HAVE MADE ANY SUBSTANTIVE EDITS ON THE ARTICLE. Finally, the merits or lack thereof of other articles is not a defense in AfD. See [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]]. It is the rhetorical equivalent to "But mom, Tim did the same thing and HE DIDN"T GET GROUNDED!" -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 17:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
:* I think you will find that Keep !votes go farther if they respond to the actual issues raised by concerned editors. I see no response whatever to the lack of notability or reliable sources. There are lots of links in the above comments. Please take a look at our guidelines and policies. If you really want to delete your other articles, you can request deletion by blanking them and then adding the tag Db-g7 inside a set of {{}}. Please note: YOU MAY ONLY DO THIS IF NO OTHER EDITORS HAVE MADE ANY SUBSTANTIVE EDITS ON THE ARTICLE. Finally, the merits or lack thereof of other articles is not a defense in AfD. See [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]]. It is the rhetorical equivalent to "But mom, Tim did the same thing and HE DIDN"T GET GROUNDED!" -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 17:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
::*Ad Orientem, You've obviously missed my point. I understand about the tags that you added to the article, however it was put up for deletion because of Orange Mike's views about promotionalism regarding the Gernatt Family. Certainly, three mentions of Gernatt, Sr. and a mention of his wife, Flavia, could be trimmed down, and already have been. So, to me, that negates the issue about why it was put up for deletion in the first place. Orange Mike should put up the other 9 St. Joseph Parish articles throughout the world for deletion, as well, for lack of notability. I see that most of you are entering into this ongoing issue and aren't quite aware of all of the history, however I'm already past wits end with wasting my time and effort here. I'm tired of the articles I've creating being singled out for deletion due to political perspectives. That's the bottom line, and that's what you've missed for the past 4 months. That is also why I'm no longer very active here - too much ugliness, negativity, and politics. This is why I just see this as more of the same. It just gives those editors who are eager to delete and be so exceedingly ugly the opportunity to do so, as evidenced particularly by those who have a history of tracking my edits, and reflected by their contributions in this discussion. That's why I say delete everything; I'm sorry I've contributed anything here. -Just fyi so you're up to date. [[User:Daniellagreen|<b style="color:#7F007F">Daniellagreen</b>]] [[User talk:Daniellagreen|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Daniellagreen|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 18:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
::*Ad Orientem, You've obviously missed my point. I understand about the tags that you added to the article, however it was put up for deletion because of Orange Mike's views about promotionalism regarding the Gernatt Family. Certainly, three mentions of Gernatt, Sr. and a mention of his wife, Flavia, could be trimmed down, and already have been. So, to me, that negates the issue about why it was put up for deletion in the first place. Orange Mike should put up the other 9 St. Joseph Parish articles throughout the world for deletion, as well, for lack of notability. I see that most of you are entering into this ongoing issue and aren't quite aware of all of the history, however I'm already past wits end with wasting my time and effort here. I'm tired of the articles I've creating being singled out for deletion due to political perspectives. That's the bottom line, and that's what you've missed for the past 4 months. That is also why I'm no longer very active here - too much ugliness, negativity, and politics. This is why I just see this as more of the same. It just gives those editors who are eager to delete and be so exceedingly ugly the opportunity to do so, as evidenced particularly by those who have a history of tracking my edits, and reflected by their contributions in this discussion. That's why I say delete everything; I'm sorry I've contributed anything here. -Just fyi so you're up to date. [[User:Daniellagreen|<b style="color:#7F007F">Daniellagreen</b>]] [[User talk:Daniellagreen|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Daniellagreen|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 18:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
:::* As you have ignored every word I wrote, as also the well reasoned comments by other concerned and highly experienced editors, instead opting for histrionics, I see no point in continuing this conversation. The reviewing Admin will weigh the arguments and the chips will fall where they will. If you choose to leave the project, you do so with my sincere regret, but also my best wishes. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 19:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:29, 14 November 2014

St. Joseph Parish, Gowanda, New York

St. Joseph Parish, Gowanda, New York (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)

Non-notable local church; seems to have been created as a WP:COATRACK to publicize parishioners, especially the Gernatt family. Orange Mike | Talk 03:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a reluctant !vote since someone obviously invested a great deal of effort into this article. However the article does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. The sources generally don't meet our standards for establishing notability and as the nom points out there is strong evidence that this article had a promotional objective. I would also refer any reviewing editors to my note on the talk page and a rather lengthy discussion by various editors of this article's merits and lack thereof here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:GNG or any other relevant notability guideline. No coverage in independent sources; cobbled together via sources from the parish/village itself and a lot of WP:OR. Article creator has a knack for creating large, attractively laid out articles which fail notability upon close examination, 95% of which are promotional of the Gernatt family. Softlavender (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As AO said, it's unfortunate, but the editor who created this (and a number of related) articles insists on investing time in fantastic bloat on apparently non-notable subjects. For example, here is a passage about one of the parish's schools, now closed:
Patrick Brady was the principal of the School,[10][31][19][20][21][22][29][32][33][34] and Donna Cook is the assistant principal at the time of closure.[10][31] Cook taught 6th grade at the School, and has the most years of teaching experience - at 36 years - of anyone in its employ;[35] she also doubled, when needed, as assistant principal.[10][31]
Really? REALLY? Does the reader REALLY need to know who was the principal of a closed school (with ten -- count 'em, ten! -- citations) and that the 6th-grade teacher had the most teaching experience, and "also doubled, when needed, as assistant principal"? Of a now-closed school? What about the bus routes, you ask? Well,
Students were bussed to the School from more than 12 towns and/or villages, including Gowanda, Persia, Collins, Perrysburg, North Collins, Eden, Springville, Forestville, Cattaraugus, Little Valley, Pine Valley, and Silver Creek.[26] The Persia, Collins, and Perrysburg students were included in the Gowanda bus routes.
All of this is elaborately cited to school newsletters, parish circulars, pennysavers, and so on, giving the fake appearance of significant coverage, which in fact is absent. There's no sense at all of what's appropriate to include. EEng (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC) P.S. Bonus points for "The parish is named for St. Joseph." Thanks for letting us know![reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is indeed, as mentioned above, an elaborately constructed edifice, which upon closer inspection turns out to be made of pure fluff - "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". Does not pass WP:GNG or any of its derivative/subsidiary standards - there isn't even sufficient solid reference material for the shortest of stubs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How is this article any different from all of the other parishes and churches listed on this organization? This is just another reflection of the negativity of people's politics and personal perspectives against anything here that includes any mention about the Gernatt Family. It makes it appear as though there is a political vendetta against anything that even remotely mentions these people. This is so pathetic. What happened to people who think outside of the box? I can see they are no longer getting involved in these type of unfounded and unnecessary discussions. Hours of work down the drain, people. What a waste. I really do regret ever contributing anything here for so many people whose only desire is to delete others' work. Follow the policy, not your own personal perspectives. I realize that the policies are not consistently enforced, but the inflexibility reflected just becomes more and more obvious with each deletion request of articles that I have created. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 15:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to add, please put up all articles that I've created for deletion. They should not be included in this organization. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 16:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you will find that Keep !votes go farther if they respond to the actual issues raised by concerned editors. I see no response whatever to the lack of notability or reliable sources. There are lots of links in the above comments. Please take a look at our guidelines and policies. If you really want to delete your other articles, you can request deletion by blanking them and then adding the tag Db-g7 inside a set of {{}}. Please note: YOU MAY ONLY DO THIS IF NO OTHER EDITORS HAVE MADE ANY SUBSTANTIVE EDITS ON THE ARTICLE. Finally, the merits or lack thereof of other articles is not a defense in AfD. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. It is the rhetorical equivalent to "But mom, Tim did the same thing and HE DIDN"T GET GROUNDED!" -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ad Orientem, You've obviously missed my point. I understand about the tags that you added to the article, however it was put up for deletion because of Orange Mike's views about promotionalism regarding the Gernatt Family. Certainly, three mentions of Gernatt, Sr. and a mention of his wife, Flavia, could be trimmed down, and already have been. So, to me, that negates the issue about why it was put up for deletion in the first place. Orange Mike should put up the other 9 St. Joseph Parish articles throughout the world for deletion, as well, for lack of notability. I see that most of you are entering into this ongoing issue and aren't quite aware of all of the history, however I'm already past wits end with wasting my time and effort here. I'm tired of the articles I've creating being singled out for deletion due to political perspectives. That's the bottom line, and that's what you've missed for the past 4 months. That is also why I'm no longer very active here - too much ugliness, negativity, and politics. This is why I just see this as more of the same. It just gives those editors who are eager to delete and be so exceedingly ugly the opportunity to do so, as evidenced particularly by those who have a history of tracking my edits, and reflected by their contributions in this discussion. That's why I say delete everything; I'm sorry I've contributed anything here. -Just fyi so you're up to date. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 18:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you have ignored every word I wrote, as also the well reasoned comments by other concerned and highly experienced editors, instead opting for histrionics, I see no point in continuing this conversation. The reviewing Admin will weigh the arguments and the chips will fall where they will. If you choose to leave the project, you do so with my sincere regret, but also my best wishes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]