Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Sollentuna Parish: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:18, 18 October 2012 editChemTerm (talk | contribs)3,164 edits @Hegvald - WP:NTEMP← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:25, 2 February 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(44 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''keep'''. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|S}}


:{{la|Sollentuna Parish}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>) :{{la|Sollentuna Parish}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)
:({{Find sources|Sollentuna Parish}}) :({{Find sources|Sollentuna Parish}})
One-liner without references of proof of notability. Fails ]. ] ] 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC) One-liner without references of proof of notability. Fails ]. ] ] 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
:Article has now improved tremendously. ] (]) 12:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Do not not not delete (a.k.a. KEEP)''' Notability is asserted through the availability of sources, not the presence of them. Sollentuna Parish has been around for a few hundred years. Contrary to your declaration of it failing gng, this parish has been mentioned by numerous print sources, as a Google Books search would show. ] (]) 04:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC) *'''Do not not not delete (a.k.a. KEEP)''' Notability is asserted through the availability of sources, not the presence of them. Sollentuna Parish has been around for a few hundred years. Contrary to your declaration of it failing gng, this parish has been mentioned by numerous print sources, as a Google Books search would show. ] (]) 04:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
:But as a weaker alternative, rather than an outright delete, maybe a redirect/merge to ], though that would not be so fitting. ] (]) 04:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC) :But as a weaker alternative, rather than an outright delete, maybe a redirect/merge to ], though that would not be so fitting. ] (]) 04:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Line 24: Line 31:
**** Haha. Funny. "a parish is not (as geographic locations) " haha. http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/boundary_map_page.jsp?u_id=10736006 Haha. Someone made a map of the parish, haha. Turning it into a ... hahaha, can't hardly write hahha ... a geographical location. Haha. ] (]) 17:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC) **** Haha. Funny. "a parish is not (as geographic locations) " haha. http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/boundary_map_page.jsp?u_id=10736006 Haha. Someone made a map of the parish, haha. Turning it into a ... hahaha, can't hardly write hahha ... a geographical location. Haha. ] (]) 17:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': I guess the notability would depend on whether we are talking about the historic Sollentuna parish (]), which ''is'' a geographical location, albeit a non-current one, that is attested in written documents from the 13th century, but was almost certainly around from the 12th century (when the earliest parts of the church are dated), and possibly earlier, ''or'' the current Church of Sweden parish (]). The latter has its origins in the historic parish but is, in its current incarnation, a less interesting and rather ephemeral unit likely to change in size and shape to adapt to the trend of secularization. The historic parishes were also the basis of the first modern municipalities in 1863, when the ecclesiastical and secular aspects of the parishes were separated in two different but (for the next 90 years or so, with local variations) geographically identical units. --] (]) 16:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC) *'''Comment''': I guess the notability would depend on whether we are talking about the historic Sollentuna parish (]), which ''is'' a geographical location, albeit a non-current one, that is attested in written documents from the 13th century, but was almost certainly around from the 12th century (when the earliest parts of the church are dated), and possibly earlier, ''or'' the current Church of Sweden parish (]). The latter has its origins in the historic parish but is, in its current incarnation, a less interesting and rather ephemeral unit likely to change in size and shape to adapt to the trend of secularization. The historic parishes were also the basis of the first modern municipalities in 1863, when the ecclesiastical and secular aspects of the parishes were separated in two different but (for the next 90 years or so, with local variations) geographically identical units. --] (]) 16:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
** I think you are in the wrong session. This is the jokeboard! Haha. Just joking. ... ''']''' ] (]) 17:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC) ** I think you are in the wrong session. This is the jokeboard! Haha. Just joking. ... ''']''', ''']''' ] (]) 17:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
***hihi, we have some other jokes for guys like you: ] and ]. ] ] 17:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
:Awww. Here, we ''need'' people like him. Don't block! He's funny! :) In fact, I personally would give him a surreal barnstar! Ain't ya bored, with no humor in life? :) ] (]) 09:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 22:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 22:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)</small>
*'''Delete'''. It's a parish. Parishes are not generally notable. Individual churches within them may be notable as historic buildings, but not the parish as an organisation. No other Swedish ecclesiastical parishes appear to have articles. -- ] (]) 22:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
** Haha - "No other Swedish ecclesiastical parishes appear to have articles." rolling on the floor. That way the very first article of Misplaced Pages would not have been written. haha very funny. Welcome to the jokeboard. ] (]) 23:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
***Yes, we're all aware of that. However, it may surprise you to learn that Misplaced Pages has been around a long time now and the fact that not a single other Swedish parish has an article is telling. I would also suggest that mocking and patronising other editors' considered contributions to the debate only serves to lessen your own arguments and disrupt proceedings. -- ] (]) 00:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
****I think you are not a clown. You are very serious about what you do. But you are not bringing up clever reasoning. Indeed "the fact that not a single other Swedish parish has an article is telling". Maybe due to vandals like you. You act with bad faith, and cite no policy that warrants deletion. There is a policy ]. R E A D! And then tell why Swedish parishes are not allowed to have their own article in Misplaced Pages, whilst many other have them. ] (]) 00:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
*****You are accusing a long-term, experienced editor and administrator, who has written hundreds of articles on Misplaced Pages, of vandalism and bad faith. Be very, very careful here my friend! Your ] and patronising comments are leaving you skating on very thin ice and one more such attack on anyone will result in you being blocked. AfDs allow for opinions and that is what I have stated. You are within your rights not to agree with them, but not to attack those who give them. In my opinion, as I have previously stated in other AfDs, ''no'' ecclesiastical parish, in Sweden or elsewhere, should have an article without a very good reason. They are too unimportant and low-level. -- ] (]) 14:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
******You mean administrators are holy or something like that? And long-term editors don't need to respect policies? Haha. +1 for this joke! ] (]) 04:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
*******No, I mean that accusing long-term editors of vandalism and bad faith without any evidence is a personal attack. You don't seem to be learning your lesson. -- ] (]) 11:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
********Well, an experienced editor would provide a related policy or guideline backing up his statement. You do not. Is it mentioned in ] that all parishes are not notable (as in having notability, haha). Also, just because no other Swedish ecclesiastical parishes appear to have articles is not a very good argument. See ] and ] ] (]) 14:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
*********Ah, so you think that not quoting a holy policy or sacred guideline invalidates my opinion and means I should be accused of vandalism and bad faith do you? Interesting. As I have said elsewhere, this shows a serious misunderstanding of the AfD process. -- ] (]) 15:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
**********Ah, I would think your opinion would lack substance and persuasiveness if you don't quote a "holy policy" or "sacred guideline". Your argument above is reminiscent of ]. Also, I am unlike ChemTerm, the nice comedian. I do not accuse you of "vandalism" or "bad faith". ] (]) 05:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
***********Frankly my friend, you're not a comedian at all. And neither is ChemTerm, who made the accusations. I'm sick of reiterating the fact that policies and guidelines do not have to be quoted for an opinion to be valid (Misplaced Pages ], thank God), so let's just leave it there. -- ] (]) 08:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
************ Next round. Bong bong. Featuring inhabitants for this what Misplaced Pages maybe is not, or maybe is: ]. Why are they here? Did they write ]. What for? Trara: ]. Big smile: ] "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it." - But not anarchy? ] -> Task #8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtEkUmYecnk "The Place That Sends You Mad". If there are so many clownish rules - become a clown tooooooooooooooooooo. tralala. Serious: hahah :-) ] (]) 06:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Uninvolved comment on canvassing'''. and . I am not getting involved in this discussion. Only saying these are canvassing in a bad way due to their language, "users hunting", "deletion attacks", etc. These popped up (as potential vandalism) in Huggle, wanted to make everyone known of this. ] &#124; ] 01:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

*It depends on if we're talking about ] or ], as explained by Hegvald. If the latter, then convert into the former and '''keep'''. Historical ] in Sweden went beyond simple ecclesiastical division from the 1500s onward, becoming used for such functions property registry and local record-keeping. Thus, they aren't much different from other small-level administrative units like U.S. ]. I'd agree that the modern ecclesiastical unit probably isn't notable, but the historical parish is as notable as any other small geographic location. ~~ ] (]) 01:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
** I can note (notice) the församling. So do the users at the Swedish WP. :-) Seriously. I swear by god I can not(ic)e it. A guess: probably more people currently can notice something existing (församling) compared with something historic that ceased to exist (socken). ] (]) 04:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' -- I presume that the parish is a subdivision of the municpality. This was a local administrative unit. There is no reason why we should not have articles on them, but typically in England we have an article on a village or locality, which may happen to be similar in extent to a civil parish, rather than directly on the parish. In other words, this article is not just about a church. ] (]) 11:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
**No, it's not an ]. It's an ] - merely the area served by a church or set of churches with no civil administrative functions. -- ] (]) 14:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
***Even the ] has administration. It is a administrative sub-division of the ]. Don't believe it? Everyone can go with his faith. But this is an encyclopedia! (more or less). ] (]) 04:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
****In general we do not keep articles on ecclesiastical units below diocesan level. -- ] (]) 11:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
* Comment: ] ] ] ] ] - only because the parish lost some functions it does not need to be deleted. ] (]) 04:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
**Sorry, you are wrong. An article should describe just ''one'' subject. You are trying to move ''two'' subjects into one article. And only the historical civil parish seems to have a valid claim to notability, the ecclesical parish has not. When you want to make sure that this article survives, change course and make it an article about the historical cival parish. Only then you have a reasonable chance on success. ] ] 07:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
*** Sometimes two subjects happen to end up in the same page. ]: Ceremonial county and non-metropolitan county (different borders) in the same page. ]: "Status: Administrative and (smaller) ceremonial county". The försammling is a continuation of the socken. I don't see why försammling info needs to be deleted. "When you want to make sure that this article survives, change course" - I don't see any policy warranting deletion of an article because it contains some content about an entity of the ]. ] (]) 05:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
****They are ''mentioned'' on the same page, not described. ] ] 11:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Confusion seems to be arising here because some editors, mostly from non-English-speaking countries, are confusing parishes which are civil administrative units (e.g. in England and Louisiana) with parishes that are merely small ecclesiastical sub-divisions and have no civil administrative function. The former can be notable and are often kept, the latter, generally, are not. Note that we do ''not'' have articles on most ], as these are considered too small, and these seem to be a similar size to the Swedish parishes. We ''do'' have articles on the villages after which English parishes are named, but we also have articles on the villages after which Swedish parishes are named (e.g. ] itself), so this is an identical situation. Parishes in Louisiana are the equivalent of counties and are thus much larger units. All these differences in terminology seem to be creating a little confusion. -- ] (]) 11:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
:Wow. Sorry, but could ya sum it up in English? ] (]) 14:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
::I plain English: unless articles on ecclesical parishes are properly sourced and prove notability, they normally deleted. See for example: ], ], ], ] and ] (declined). But I have to admit that those discussion were never easy. ] ] 14:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Sollentuna ''Municipality'' is the modern equivalent of the historical Sollentuna Parish. It's not a village or town, it's an administrative district. You're quick to throw the blame on "non-English-speaking" editors for the confusion, but I think it rather stems from those non-Swedish-speaking (or non-Google-Translate-using) editors who can't be bothered to find out the difference between ''socknar'' and ''församlingar''. ~~ ] (]) 16:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
::::No, we're aware of that. But if you check, you'll see that ] as a community does not yet have an article. -- ] (]) 17:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Are we ignoring the fact that Sollentuna Municipality is (roughly) the modern equivalent of the former Sollentuna Parish? If the municipality gets an article, then why not the ''socken'' that it replaced? You seem to be fairly intent on having these articles deleted regardless of anything pointed out to you, so why do I even bother? ~~ ] (]) 17:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::Not at all. It is my contention that Sollentuna itself should have an article, but the various minor administrative units associated with it should not and should simply be factored into the main article about the municipality. This is the norm with Swedish municipalities and I'm not sure why others seem to think this particular community (and Bromma) should be an exception to the norm. Redirect the other articles to ]. Job done. -- ] (]) 18:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::: Was mentioned already: "Merge New York City into New York! Has same letters in the beginning!" ] (]) 06:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::You really don't take this process seriously? ] ] 10:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::I think you mean.... ''Do'' you. ] (]) 11:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Is there anything on the page that could be taken seriously? A new clown below writes "Too small of an admistrative area to qualify for automatic inclusion". Automatic inclusion, oh yeah, that would make WP-editors jobless! Where are sizes defined? Lot of people pop up with ]. ] ] ] ]. Those are turning all processes into clownery. Am I serious about what I just said? I don't know. Hahahaha :-) ] (]) 21:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Delete''': Too small of an admistrative area to qualify for automatic inclusion. This is a lot like an American city ward or neighborhood, not an American Township, which has it's own government and by-laws. No evidence of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, so fails to meet any of our notability guidelines. Not notable as an ecclesiastical parish, for that matter. ] (]) 21:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
**The case of this parish and Bromma parish is complicated by the fact that Stockholm has now more or less engulfed them. Fact of the matter is, these parishes were for centuries quite distinct from the city, and so cannot be reasonably called a "neighbourhood" or "city ward". ''Socknar'' were distinct units of a number towns and/or villages, with hybrid civil-ecclesiastical administrative functions. That the administration was of a different nature than American government is to be expected, as Sweden has a different legal/governmental history than America—that doesn't mean that there was no local governing function. The historical ''socknar'' retain importance to this very day in Swedish linguistic research, toponymy, local/regional history, and archaeology. And somehow I don't think that "city ward" or "neighbourhood" is an adequate descriptor for e.g. ] (now there's a name for you). ~~ ] (]) 16:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


*'''Request Speedy Closure as Keep, as nominator''' Due to the work of Mr. Von Richthofen there is now a clear article about the historical civil parish. As a geographic entity that is already worth keeping. But he has also made a properly sourced article, good enough to convince me of its notability. ] ] 18:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 17:25, 2 February 2022

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 keep. MBisanz 00:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sollentuna Parish

Sollentuna Parish (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)

One-liner without references of proof of notability. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Article has now improved tremendously. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Do not not not delete (a.k.a. KEEP) Notability is asserted through the availability of sources, not the presence of them. Sollentuna Parish has been around for a few hundred years. Contrary to your declaration of it failing gng, this parish has been mentioned by numerous print sources, as a Google Books search would show. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
But as a weaker alternative, rather than an outright delete, maybe a redirect/merge to Sollentuna Municipality, though that would not be so fitting. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm leaning keep on this. After reviewing the Swedish Wiki page on this topic (at least i think the topic s the same) here: http://sv.wikipedia.org/Sollentuna_kyrka. It seems the Swedes have something to say about this place in their country. Maybe we should adapt the English article to mirror this content in English and be done with it. Celtechm (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:The Banner ("I am a Dutchman but since a couple of years living in County Clare, Ireland.") is fighting a little war against presentation of Sollentuna articles and Sollentuna content, see . So this nomination seems to be only part of the war, not really based on anything substantial. It would be nice if someone could remove this user from editing on Sollentuna related articles or maybe whole Sweden / Scandinavia. Also on his user page he lists no knowledge of any Scandinavian language, whilst listing several other languages. It seems he is not qualified and personally able to judge on the matter. His edits are highly disruptive to the process of improving the English Misplaced Pages. ChemTerm (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - is Misplaced Pages a democracy and people can vote on such basic things? I think this is a joke. Voting on having certain content or not. Haha. Yes, I vote for Sollentuna. Shall we delete County Clare - place of living of User:The Banner - instead? Haha. Just joking. But seriously. Keep all verifiable content, even if The Banner ... hahaha ... says it is not notable hahaha .. I can note it. Haha. Just joking. This is so funny. Articlevotipedia. Hahaha ... ChemTerm (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
    Nice, instead of coming with valid arguments, you come with personal attacks. The Banner talk 11:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
haha, nice indeed. Funny, original material. ChemTerm, you can be a clown. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Haha, indeed agreed. Haha. But I think am would not be as good as the people suggesting to merge Sollentuna Parish into Sollentuna Municipality. Does that merging apply to reality too or only to the article haha. When is the referendum. OMG, does the Church of Sweden has anything to say here, I mean, the real parish is part of the Church of Sweden Diocese of Stockholm. Hahahaha.. but maybe in Misplaced Pages people are not restricted by reality. So much freedom. Maybe lets change more, Mississippi River flows in the USA. MERGE!?! Haha, just joking, I know this would not be done. ChemTerm (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge to Sollentuna Municipality. While we presume that places are notable, there is already this other article on the place, Sollentuna, and it is reasonable to include the parish within it. There is no prejudice against creating an article on churches (for example) of special interest, if there are adequate sources. I note that Swedish WP's "Sollentuna kyrka" ('Sollentuna church') has materials that could be used. And could everyone remain civil, please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
But the parish itself is notable already, it deserves a stand alone article, rather than a merge to Sollentuna. It has potential for great expansion, with a fair share of cleanup. Merging would swamp potential material. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
In that case we would need citations that show the parish - not the church or town - is separately notable, as notability is not inherited. If you can identify three or four such reliable, independent citations then of course the article can stay. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hm. Here. Mentioned in many lines in The Meaning of Christian Liturgy: Recent Developments in the Church of Sweden By Oloph Bexell, Gordon W. (FRW) Lathrop. Also mentioned in quite a few other books, like 'Visions of the past: trends and traditions in Swedish medieval archaeology, Tor, Volume 9, etc. Notability guidelines say only two sources are needed to affirm notability, so yea, this will pass easily. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment at User:Chiswick Chap - for the parish to be inside the municipality article, you surely found boundary information? Are did you just went be name, everything Sollentuna XYZ merge into Sollentuna Municipality? Merge New York City into New York! Has same letters in the beginning! ChemTerm (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Parishes, unlike geographic locations, are not inherently notable and these is nothing that I can see that makes this one difference. The GoogleBook hits are all passing mentions (usually in reference to the church by the same name, which may deserve an article) or are non-notable coverage. There is simply no significant, in-depth coverage as required by WP:GNG. Additionally, the limited information on the proper swedish wikiepdia site, Sollentuna församling doesn't indicate to me that there are any major sources available in Swedish either. Ravendrop 17:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I guess the notability would depend on whether we are talking about the historic Sollentuna parish (sv:Sollentuna socken), which is a geographical location, albeit a non-current one, that is attested in written documents from the 13th century, but was almost certainly around from the 12th century (when the earliest parts of the church are dated), and possibly earlier, or the current Church of Sweden parish (sv:Sollentuna församling). The latter has its origins in the historic parish but is, in its current incarnation, a less interesting and rather ephemeral unit likely to change in size and shape to adapt to the trend of secularization. The historic parishes were also the basis of the first modern municipalities in 1863, when the ecclesiastical and secular aspects of the parishes were separated in two different but (for the next 90 years or so, with local variations) geographically identical units. --Hegvald (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Awww. Here, we need people like him. Don't block! He's funny! :) In fact, I personally would give him a surreal barnstar! Ain't ya bored, with no humor in life? :) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a parish. Parishes are not generally notable. Individual churches within them may be notable as historic buildings, but not the parish as an organisation. No other Swedish ecclesiastical parishes appear to have articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Haha - "No other Swedish ecclesiastical parishes appear to have articles." rolling on the floor. That way the very first article of Misplaced Pages would not have been written. haha very funny. Welcome to the jokeboard. ChemTerm (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, we're all aware of that. However, it may surprise you to learn that Misplaced Pages has been around a long time now and the fact that not a single other Swedish parish has an article is telling. I would also suggest that mocking and patronising other editors' considered contributions to the debate only serves to lessen your own arguments and disrupt proceedings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I think you are not a clown. You are very serious about what you do. But you are not bringing up clever reasoning. Indeed "the fact that not a single other Swedish parish has an article is telling". Maybe due to vandals like you. You act with bad faith, and cite no policy that warrants deletion. There is a policy WP:ILIKE. R E A D! And then tell why Swedish parishes are not allowed to have their own article in Misplaced Pages, whilst many other have them. ChemTerm (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
          • You are accusing a long-term, experienced editor and administrator, who has written hundreds of articles on Misplaced Pages, of vandalism and bad faith. Be very, very careful here my friend! Your personal attacks and patronising comments are leaving you skating on very thin ice and one more such attack on anyone will result in you being blocked. AfDs allow for opinions and that is what I have stated. You are within your rights not to agree with them, but not to attack those who give them. In my opinion, as I have previously stated in other AfDs, no ecclesiastical parish, in Sweden or elsewhere, should have an article without a very good reason. They are too unimportant and low-level. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Uninvolved comment on canvassing. on Sweedish Wikipedians' noticeboard and on WikiProject Geography noticeboard. I am not getting involved in this discussion. Only saying these are canvassing in a bad way due to their language, "users hunting", "deletion attacks", etc. These popped up (as potential vandalism) in Huggle, wanted to make everyone known of this. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It depends on if we're talking about sv:Sollentuna socken or sv:Sollentuna församling, as explained by Hegvald. If the latter, then convert into the former and keep. Historical parishes in Sweden went beyond simple ecclesiastical division from the 1500s onward, becoming used for such functions property registry and local record-keeping. Thus, they aren't much different from other small-level administrative units like U.S. townships. I'd agree that the modern ecclesiastical unit probably isn't notable, but the historical parish is as notable as any other small geographic location. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I can note (notice) the församling. So do the users at the Swedish WP. :-) Seriously. I swear by god I can not(ic)e it. A guess: probably more people currently can notice something existing (församling) compared with something historic that ceased to exist (socken). ChemTerm (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep -- I presume that the parish is a subdivision of the municpality. This was a local administrative unit. There is no reason why we should not have articles on them, but typically in England we have an article on a village or locality, which may happen to be similar in extent to a civil parish, rather than directly on the parish. In other words, this article is not just about a church. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:NTEMP WP:NTEMP WP:NTEMP WP:NTEMP WP:NTEMP - only because the parish lost some functions it does not need to be deleted. ChemTerm (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, you are wrong. An article should describe just one subject. You are trying to move two subjects into one article. And only the historical civil parish seems to have a valid claim to notability, the ecclesical parish has not. When you want to make sure that this article survives, change course and make it an article about the historical cival parish. Only then you have a reasonable chance on success. The Banner talk 07:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Sometimes two subjects happen to end up in the same page. Derbyshire: Ceremonial county and non-metropolitan county (different borders) in the same page. County of London: "Status: Administrative and (smaller) ceremonial county". The försammling is a continuation of the socken. I don't see why försammling info needs to be deleted. "When you want to make sure that this article survives, change course" - I don't see any policy warranting deletion of an article because it contains some content about an entity of the Church of Sweden. ChemTerm (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Confusion seems to be arising here because some editors, mostly from non-English-speaking countries, are confusing parishes which are civil administrative units (e.g. in England and Louisiana) with parishes that are merely small ecclesiastical sub-divisions and have no civil administrative function. The former can be notable and are often kept, the latter, generally, are not. Note that we do not have articles on most English civil parishes, as these are considered too small, and these seem to be a similar size to the Swedish parishes. We do have articles on the villages after which English parishes are named, but we also have articles on the villages after which Swedish parishes are named (e.g. Sollentuna Municipality itself), so this is an identical situation. Parishes in Louisiana are the equivalent of counties and are thus much larger units. All these differences in terminology seem to be creating a little confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Wow. Sorry, but could ya sum it up in English? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I plain English: unless articles on ecclesical parishes are properly sourced and prove notability, they normally deleted. See for example: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dalgety Bay Parish Church, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/St. Blog's Parish, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph Parish, Norwich, Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 18#Template:Infobox Swedish Parish and Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/2008-06-04#The Mosaic Parish of Karlskrona (declined). But I have to admit that those discussion were never easy. The Banner talk 14:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Sollentuna Municipality is the modern equivalent of the historical Sollentuna Parish. It's not a village or town, it's an administrative district. You're quick to throw the blame on "non-English-speaking" editors for the confusion, but I think it rather stems from those non-Swedish-speaking (or non-Google-Translate-using) editors who can't be bothered to find out the difference between socknar and församlingar. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
No, we're aware of that. But if you check, you'll see that Sollentuna as a community does not yet have an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Are we ignoring the fact that Sollentuna Municipality is (roughly) the modern equivalent of the former Sollentuna Parish? If the municipality gets an article, then why not the socken that it replaced? You seem to be fairly intent on having these articles deleted regardless of anything pointed out to you, so why do I even bother? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Not at all. It is my contention that Sollentuna itself should have an article, but the various minor administrative units associated with it should not and should simply be factored into the main article about the municipality. This is the norm with Swedish municipalities and I'm not sure why others seem to think this particular community (and Bromma) should be an exception to the norm. Redirect the other articles to Sollentuna Municipality. Job done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Was mentioned already: "Merge New York City into New York! Has same letters in the beginning!" ChemTerm (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
You really don't take this process seriously? The Banner talk 10:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I think you mean.... Do you. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Is there anything on the page that could be taken seriously? A new clown below writes "Too small of an admistrative area to qualify for automatic inclusion". Automatic inclusion, oh yeah, that would make WP-editors jobless! Where are sizes defined? Lot of people pop up with WP:ILIKE. WP:ILIKE WP:ILIKE WP:ILIKE WP:ILIKE. Those are turning all processes into clownery. Am I serious about what I just said? I don't know. Hahahaha :-) ChemTerm (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: Too small of an admistrative area to qualify for automatic inclusion. This is a lot like an American city ward or neighborhood, not an American Township, which has it's own government and by-laws. No evidence of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, so fails to meet any of our notability guidelines. Not notable as an ecclesiastical parish, for that matter. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
    • The case of this parish and Bromma parish is complicated by the fact that Stockholm has now more or less engulfed them. Fact of the matter is, these parishes were for centuries quite distinct from the city, and so cannot be reasonably called a "neighbourhood" or "city ward". Socknar were distinct units of a number towns and/or villages, with hybrid civil-ecclesiastical administrative functions. That the administration was of a different nature than American government is to be expected, as Sweden has a different legal/governmental history than America—that doesn't mean that there was no local governing function. The historical socknar retain importance to this very day in Swedish linguistic research, toponymy, local/regional history, and archaeology. And somehow I don't think that "city ward" or "neighbourhood" is an adequate descriptor for e.g. sv:Jokkmokks socken (now there's a name for you). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


  • Request Speedy Closure as Keep, as nominator Due to the work of Mr. Von Richthofen there is now a clear article about the historical civil parish. As a geographic entity that is already worth keeping. But he has also made a properly sourced article, good enough to convince me of its notability. The Banner talk 18:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
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.