Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Holy Trinity Church, Benaulim incident

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=2023 Holy Trinity Church, Benaulim incident}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=2023 Holy Trinity Church, Benaulim incident}})

See WP:NOTNEWS. The article provides nothing of consequence to indicate that this 'incident' meets Wikipedia notability criteria. Disputes between parishoners and clergy (or equivalents in other faiths) get reported in local newspapers all the time, and very few are of enduring significance, liable to attract the ongoing coverage needed to justify a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, when one discounts the repetition, the extensive off-topic padding, and the editorialising (see e.g. the 'Media opinion' section in particular), the article is singularly uninformative as to what exactly this 'dispute' was actually about. There are obvious WP:BLP concerns involved, e.g. in naming individuals charged with minor criminal offences but not convicted, along with the broader issue of claiming 'controversy' over individuals without providing sufficient evidence of any long-term continuity in coverage to justify it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

::*Note: After some consideration, I have now removed the 'Media opinion' section commented on above from the article - regardless of the outcome of this AfD, such blatant editorialising doesn't remotely belong in article space. I have also removed a section entitled 'Media coverage' which entirely lacked any source actually discussing such coverage, and appears to serve no purpose beyond making the incident look more significant than it is -violating WP:NPOV along with other policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

:How much incidents relating between parishioners and the parish priest which has led to a resignation have been reported, especially in this small state of Goa with significant amount of Christians? I find this subject pass the notability criteria mainly because it's not a an "average" dispute, which possibly you're talking about. The priest has lost his position in the church and possibly won't every be assigned in any church. Not to forget Fr Rodrigues has been mentioned several times in local news publications. Apart this, its not the first the parishioners of Benaulim church or particularly this church has been in news. There are reports as early as early 2000s, see [https://www.ucanews.com/story-archive/?post_name=/2001/06/06/catholics-attack-renegade-priest-as-sect-tension-escalates-in-goa&post_id=18591] involving the priest in charge. {{tq|The article is singularly uninformative as to what exactly this 'dispute' was actually about}}, see second paragraph of the lead. it is mentioned that {{tq|Parishioners accused the priest of making administrative decisions without consulting them, and of ignoring their opinions and concerns about the practices and services in the church. The situation reached a breaking point when some parishioners, who were allegedly close to the priest, filed police complaints against certain individuals.}} Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 19:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

::An unrelated incident involving another priest 22 years ago does absolutely nothing to increase the notability of this incident. As for the rest, I stand by what I wrote: the article doesn't tell us what it is the dispute was even about, in any real detail. And no, the lack of coverage for other events doesn't bestow notability on this one, either. WP:N doesn't work like that. Not even remotely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

:::What do you mean by {{tq|the article article doesn't tell us what it is the dispute was even about}}? Not to forget that I was still working on the article, like I said the above statement was from The Times of India in the English language. You can also see a better detailed information about the matter on two news publications, The Prudent Media [https://www.facebook.com/PrudentMedia/videos/216025601201128/?mibextid=Nif5oz] and Dainik Gomantak [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ipdGe5Y-qyk&feature=youtu.be]. Do note that the above two news links are mostly in the Konkani language and a Non-Konkani editor will find it difficult to comprehend what's even going on. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 20:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

::::It would probably be easier to comprehend what was going on if you had made some effort to tell us. What 'administrative decisions' were the parishioners upset about? Which 'opinions' of theirs do they claim were being ignored? What was it about the 'practices and services in the church' that they took issue with? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

:::::I would had be pleased to comprehend the issue only if I had got more time then taking this to the AFD. Leaving that aside, I've made a breakdown about the Dainik Gomantak video source, I don't think this will answer all your questions but to summarise what the concerned person told in the video was; {{tq|The letter was issued because the parishioners did not want Fr. Rodrigues since they did not understand him. The things he preached were not done properly, the Bible readings were not read properly, and the practices and services (mass liturgy, etc) of the church were not conducted properly. In addition, there were other issues that the parishioners wrote down to the Bishop. The concerned parishioner further claimed that his actions were tarnishing the Christian religion, which is why the parishioners of Benaulim do not visit their own parish church, but instead go to neighboring churches to attend their services}}. According to Prudent Media's livestream, it was difficult to interpret what the locals were saying due to the sheer number of people present. Towards the end of the video, all that could be understood was that {{tq|they alleged the parish priest had embezzled funds from the church, (mainly donations, etc.) and called him names}}. Also do note that most of the issues or answers to your questions are undisclosed by the government officials, locals or journalists involved. I can provide more details from Twitter but they aren't written down by experts rather individual persons, hence they're not reliable and won't provide proper weightage to this discussion. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 03:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, India, and Goa. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS and perhaps TOOSOON as well. If people are still talking about this in a year maybe it could be made into a shortened, simplified article, so I would be ok with draftifying it as a second option. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• :What according to WP:NOTNEWS you disagree of? WP:TOOSOON usually points out issues with "independent reliable sources". Check the article again, it has sources from different media publications from Goa. Also see my reply above to AndyTheGrump, I've mentioned The Prudent Media and Dainik Gomantak but you'll have to learn a different language for that unless you're a Goan. {{tq|Maybe it could be made into a shortened, simplified article}} what do you mean shortened article? When the article can be as lengthy as this one, since I've been WP:BOLD about it. People were already talking about it in June, you can see Tweets, Facebook posts and even YouTube videos see [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=038kxe_pKFY&feature=youtu.be] [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dn5-B-MDRN4&feature=youtu.be] [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6LVWNpb5N7Q&feature=youtu.be]
• :[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L-J-AWgIgZU&feature=youtu.be] there's also another public opinion in The Navhind Times see [https://www.navhindtimes.in/2023/06/01/opinions/letters/letters-to-the-editor-2325/]. Yet the Cardinal had also issued this statement after witnessing the incident at Benaulim, see here [https://mattersindia.com/2023/06/reach-out-to-those-in-live-in-relation-goa-archbishop/] which gives an insight on how much efforts have been made to hush up the issues that happened at a village, which is also tourist destination. I believe we should be WP:BOLD about it and let the people know and educate about things happening in the state of Goa. I haven't added YouTube videos to references in the article since they're not from news publications. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 06:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per AndyTheGrump and WP:NOTNEWS as it provides nothing of consequence to indicate notability and it does not have Lasting impact.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• :How it doesn't have a lasting effect? Per WP:LASTING, {{tq|Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else.}} read the article title from The Goan Everyday which says {{tq|Action at Benaulim Church sets a horrible precedent.}} see [https://www.thegoan.net/editorial/action-at-benaulim-church-sets-a-horrible-precedent/99595.html] To provide a general overview to you, As far as I've known and looked up on the internet, the state of Goa has never had a protest with hundreds of parishioners demanding action against a priest which resulted in his resignation from the church, the demand was first requested over months ago. This can be a possibile catalyst to unknown events in the forthcoming years the state has to witness. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 19:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• ::WP:CRYSTALBALL {{tq|"Wikipedia does not predict the future"}}. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• :::I'm ready to take my statment back, but still doesn't tackle the fact that it passes WP:LASTING. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 19:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• ::::How can you possibly assert that? The events only happened a couple of months ago. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• :::::I haven't claimed that an {{tq|Action at Benaulim Church has a horrible precedent}}. There's an article written about it, maybe you could go through it. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 19:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• ::::::Yeah, that's an editorial. Speculation about things that might happen. If and when they do, and if and when they get significant coverage, we can write an article about them. Until then, we aren't obliged to report what anonymous journalists see in their crystal balls. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• :::::::I'll be more careful with the word "speculation". They have referred the Benaulim incident a couple of times, quote {{tq|The Benaulim incident is a grim reminder that the 'golden phase of silence' may end sooner, and protests could be the way forward, even at churches.}} This gives us an insight on how much serious this incident is, I'm not sure whether the editors who have supported for delete in this AFD have even gone through references? The journalist has also put forth related incidents yet the Benaulim incident stands out, like the article title is suggested. The topic has already been received significant coverage from the local media publications (excluding those that are written and difficult to find in Devnagari). It has also involved notable persons like the Cardinal and Archdiocese of Goa and Daman Filipe Neri Ferrão as well. "{{tq|We can write an article about them}}", I can vouch you that no one will come forward and write on topic such as these. Wikiprojects Goa itself has less participants, I don't expect anyone doing this. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 22:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• ::::::::I see no reason to be careful about the word 'speculation', since I was using it to describe an anonymous editorial you linked which was doing exactly that. Anyway, beyond suggesting you add WP:NOTINHERITED to the things you need to read up on, I think we are probably done here. I have expressed my opinion (based on many years as a Wikipedia contributor and participant in deletion discussions) on the notability of this 'incident'. You have expressed yours. We should probably leave the discussion to other contributors. Appropriate projects have been notified, and I'm sure there will be further input. This isn't an argument between the two of us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• :::::::::It's true that this argument is definitely not between us. It's only that I've worked on this article almost a week, spending hours and now it has come to this. Not that I didn't expect it, but I knew atleast some editor will definitely have a problem. I don't agree with the WP:NOTINHERITED part, but I'm definitely an Inclusionist. I'll leave this to the other contributors, but to your another claim of "anonymous editor", I wish you had done more digging. The editor of The Goan Everyday, is Joel Afonso from Goa News Network (GNN) see here [https://www.thegoan.net/about-us.php]. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 05:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Delete - a group of parishioners angrily demanding their priest resign is about as WP:NOTNEWS as it gets. If it were a significant church then perhaps this incident could be a short blurb in the church's article, but it isn't. The incident doesn't seem to have even garnered much coverage in the local media. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per Ivanvector. This would be WP:UNDUE as even a sentence at Benaulim, and there is no more local article with which it could be considered for a merge. I also think the mention is rather undue at the only place it's linked from, Timeline of Goan history (although it's not the only bit of trivia there). Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• Delete - Even as an inclusionist, I see nothing of value or notability here. It fails pretty much every test: Not news, currently non-notable, too soon to tell if there will ever be notability, a '4' on event criteria, lacking significant coverage, lacking persistent coverage, lacking coverage outside the area. I feel for the editor who invested so much time here, but it's just not a Wikipedia article. It's vaguely interesting, but entirely local. If it turns out to have lasting consequences (I don't see how, but my precognition is acting up), we can recreate the article in a decade or so. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.