Santa Maria Murella, Montasola: Doesn't even exist in Italian Wikipedia'.  I do think that English Wikipedia notability guidelines are among the strictest out of all Wikipedias, namely because English is a common internet language.  Therefore, I am not sure if it can pass, given that no other Wikipedia (even Italian) has this.  Per WP:NBUILD : Buildings 'may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.  Also, are sources only in Italian (or only in a language other than English) allowed?  JuniperChill ( talk ) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions .  JuniperChill ( talk ) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Unfortunately, Italian heritage listing is not great, but in most other western countries a medieval or Baroque church would undoubtedly be heritage listed and would therefore pass WP:GEOFEAT so I think this is certainly notable.  Yes, of course non-English sources are acceptable.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 09:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here?  Although this Wikipedia is likely the strictest out of all, we somehow allow special and very old buildings here even though there is only one source, and that is only in Italian.  So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable?  This article may not be meet GNG and it is a very obscure place.  This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine.  Ie i dont see it as notable.  This can also apply to Houghton Mill where it is a National Trust site, but only has a source and very few people know it (I just looked up random NT sites that are not very popular) so should be gone.  JuniperChill ( talk ) 11:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable?  Yes, of course they are, per WP:GEOFEAT .  Houghton Mill is a Grade II*-listed building.  I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here?  Yup.  This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine.  Ie i dont see it as notable.  That's not really relevant to Wikipedia notability.  Others do.  This article could certainly do with more sourcing, but buildings of this age are definitely notable.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Romanesque church probably built on the ruins of a temple, Roman age or earlier.  It means a 2000 years or more old building.  MrKeefeJohn ( talk ) 10:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Montasola .   With deep respect for the experienced editors that have previously contributed to this discussion, I can't find myself agreeing with the Keep ! votes above: WP:NBUILDING specifically states that Buildings ... may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability (my emphasis).   The Keep ! votes above recognise that Santa Maria Murella might have historic/architectural importance, but ignore the lack of coverage, which is a case exactly anticipated by the relevant notability guideline here.   Nobody has presented any "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources", and the best I could find was an entry from an office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy , which I'm not sure whether we can regard as "third-party".  Even if notability is met, WP:NOPAGE suggests that if covering a topic as part of a parent article would improve readability, we need not have a standalone article.   It seems that the existing sources have little to say that can sustain a lengthy article on Santa Maria Murella: the church and its history can be adequately summarised in a few paragraphs at Montasola .  Seeing as Santa Maria Murella, Montasola claims that the church...was located at the site of the Roman city of Laurum , which seems to be its most important feature according to previous ! votes, the church is probably easier understood in the context of Montasola's history.  In my experience, this is not uncommon for non-notable churches (and let's be honest: many places have churches that date back several centuries, though the current buildings might not be the original ones).  As an alternative to deletion , a merge allows the preservation of the page history should significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources emerge per WP:NBUILDING .  I note that Rococo1700 created articles for two other churches in the town ( Santi Pietro e Tommaso, Montasola , San Michele Arcangelo, Montasola ), which have nothing to support their notability except an entry on the local council's website.   On their userpage, they write that their aim for new entries is to try to have at least two "independent" sources , so I suspect this collection of articles results from inexperienced editing, and may also need to be reviewed.  IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 15:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Also, yes, I think articles containing only non-English-language sources are perfectly fine (cf. WP:NONENG ).  Here's one I made earlier .  The non-availability of English-language sources suggests that the topic might not be the most interesting for English-language readers, but it doesn't detract from the topic's notability.  Cf.  WP:INTERESTING : Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals and our readers and potential readers include everyone on the planet.  Any subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere.  IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 15:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 18:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect to Montasola , until such time as more/better sources turn up (in whatever language).  Ingratis ( talk ) 14:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source : Italian, gives details on the church's history.  [9] Rupples ( talk ) 03:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That source is from a office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy .   The homepage explicitly makes clear that the project is a census of Italian churches, creat[ing] a national database of Italian churches .   Your mileage may vary, but to me, this doesn't constitute an independent source, and consequently it doesn't contribute to significant coverage or notability.  IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 21:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Montasola I agree with IgnatiusofLondon that as a separate article this will at best be a stub.  The only sources I can find are mentions in sources that are essentially lists of churches in Italy.  I also think that information seekers are better served to encounter what little data there is in the context of the Montasola article.  Note that the Montasola article itself is only a few sentences, not surprising since it is a small town of ~420 population.  The Italian WP article has quite a bit of history of the place but none of it is referenced so we can't even make use of that, and the church is not mentioned in that article.  Lamona ( talk ) 02:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as suggested to Montasola .  There is too little to support four or more stubs about a small commune off the tourist track.  Also, it would fail my long-standing standards for churches , having only one factor for notability, its age.  Bearian ( talk ) 19:59, 29 April 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge