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. Definite consensus to 'keep'in some form. The present title is clearly sub-optimum and I strongly recommend a 'move' discussion, as a post-AfD action, to Michael Patnam . Just Chilling (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St Michael's Church, Michael Patnam (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)

Fails the WP:GNG, is a copy vio [1], and is possibly a web host due to the user not having any edits outside of this page. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. Is it a church? Or a hamlet? Bearian (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no justification for TNT is provided. wp:TNT is an essay basically calling for violation of Wikipedia policy, in that Bearian is implicitly acknowledging validity of the topic, and yet calling for deletion of edit history for no reason presenting, causing grief unnecessarily and violating our contract about preserving recognition for contributors under our license. See essay wp:TNTTNT to which I contributed for more explanations why this is bad. --Doncram (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (was "Keep", then "Comment", then back). It does seem misplaced, and it would better be moved to Michael Patnam or MichaelPatnam (both currently redlinks). The church can be covered in an article about the village, and villages are basically notable as populated places. While it doesn't seem right to present/cover the village in article titled to be about the church. We are obligated to look for alternatives to deletion, and Keeping this with suggestion/admonition to Move it complies with wp:ATD. --Doncram (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (was "Delete"). I first voted "Keep". However I did not first notice the assertion of copyvio, and the link to this Earwig comparison result and I have not been aware of that Earwig tool. wp:TNTTNT does acknowledge that deletion of articles that are nearly all copyvios is an exception that has to be allowed. User:AmericanAir88, for an article that is a complete copyvio, it is not necessary to have an AFD. You should PROD it or speedy delete it. So now I think this should be deleted or speedy deleted. --Doncram (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cancel my previous "delete" vote based on observation of User:Cwmhiraeth that dating suggests the blog is a copy of Wikpedia, not the other way around. --Doncram (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Michael Patnam - I don't think this is a copyvio because the content that is duplicated in the blog was included in the article earlier than the 22 August 2016 date of the blog. I could find no other mentions of the village online, but as a populated place it meets WP:GEOLAND. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A "Move" vote should be interpreted as "Keep" but with recommendation the article should probably be moved to a specific target or a wp:RM should take place. It is fine for an AFD result to require some implementation steps. "Move" is not an AFD outcome recognized by wp:AFDSTATS. --Doncram (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Although the article seems to be mainly about the village, Michael Pat(ta)nam actually appears to be a district of Vempathur as opposed to a village in its own right, unless the two have spread to merge with each other. Neither have articles as yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current article states that the district level of Michael Patnam is a Panchayati raj. Vempathur (currently a redlink), might be the next higher level? It would be okay to keep this but move/merge it to cover the higher level instead/also. This decision can be considered at the Talk page and/or left to informed editors to implement as they see fit.--Doncram (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• REname and repurpose as an article on the village. We cannot have an article on a NN local before we have one on the place where it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2019 (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.