Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inventory of Church Property

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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inventory of Church Property

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

De-PROD'd by JASpencer (see also their detailed rationale on the article's talk page). Original PROD rationale was: Look, I get that it's in the Catholic Encyclopedia, but this is basically a dictionary definition for "you take an inventory when you take over a church position that someone else had first so you know everything is in order". It's not a technical process that's somehow unique to the Catholic Church. Or any church, really. There aren't any other independent sources that I found that discuss it, so it fails WP:GNG in addition to being a dicdef.

I double checked my WP:BEFORE search prior to taking this to AfD, and I still can't find anything. The fact that it's a difficult search because it's a string of four words that can be used generically or as a capitalized proper noun only speaks against it frankly - it's not a unique process. I'd be happy to support a merge to something relevant, but I didn't find anything that seemed to be an appropriate target. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think that it would be a good idea to delete the entry - at least through the Proposed Deletion process. Not only is it a Catholic Encyclopedia entry (so at the very least not an uncontroversial deletion, but as church property were for centuries the only significant corporate holdings in most of Western Europe, then the way in which they were accounted for in order to stop them becoming the plaything of the incumbent were rather important. It was this concern that helped bring in clerical celibacy, so it was not a mere trifle. JASpencer (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's not enough in this article to make it worth keeping. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In my experience, Catholic Encyclopedia is a really bad source, despite its name and age. I have more than once found it to be seriously wrong. Not necessarily biassed, I haven't looked into that, and editorial judgment can deal with that - but demonstrably wrong on well-attested matters of historical fact. Narky Blert (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate why you think this is wrong? Is the encyclopedia still reliable by 1910's standards? Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. An inventory's an inventory. Nothing that merits a separate article about a church one.Clarityfiend (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename ~~Inventory of Catholic Church property upon administration change~~ Catholic Church inventory of property upon a change of administration (or something less unwieldy, if someone can think one up). Other than one sentence about the Church of England, it's all about a single denomination, but there is enough history to justify its existence. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a pretty notable topic related to Catholicism. However, I do think that more sources are needed. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that "more sources are needed", do you mean "more sources are needed to indicate notability", or "more sources are needed in the body of the article"? If the first, why vote keep? If the second, can you share any? The article has been expanded since the nomination, but it's all referenced to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which a) is a single source for the purpose of assessing notability, and b) has some content problems, per Narky Blert's comment above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nom says, this article's focus is problematic. A how-to guide on taking a church inventory, or any inventory, is not encyclopedic. The need to take an inventory and to communicate the results is not encyclopedic, because wherever there's significant property, its owners will track it. If imposing an orderly inventory process on the medieval church in western Europe was connected to larger historical issues (the size of the church's holdings, shrinkage problems in the hinterland, any resistance or disobedience) then that material would belong in the articles about those larger issues. --Lockley (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable and AFD is not cleanup. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ARTN. The original nomination says that this article is a dicdef, which it's clearly not — there's some discussion of the history of the process from the Middle Ages. I think that I can answer PMC's above question to Scorpions13256: When you say that "more sources are needed", do you mean "more sources are needed to indicate notability", or "more sources are needed in the body of the article"? I agree that more sources are needed, which (for me) means that the current state of the article is not very well-written, and there is obvious room for expansion on the topic. But the historical content from The Catholic Enyclopedia demonstrates notability, and if the content is not entirely reliable, then it can be corrected through normal editing, rather than deletion of a notable subject. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone concerned that the article gives too much of a specifically Catholic point of view can get an evangelical protestant view from this book, which relates this process to Ezra 1:9-11a, and an Anglican view from any commentary on the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018 or its predecessors which outlines the legal duties of various officials as regards to this procedure. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2020 (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.