Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Forest United Church

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 merge to Mount Forest, Ontario. So Why 14:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Forest United Church

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Insignificant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge [was "redirect or merge" --do ncr am 02:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)], probably to Mount Forest, Ontario. The present article includes, without source: "Built in 1873, the Mount Forest United Church is an important part of the local history of Mount Forest, Ontario, and continues to be one of the most historical, and recognizable landmarks of the area." It seems to me to be a decent attempt to assert and explain notability relating to the populated place. However, the church is apparently not listed on any historic registry and its specific historic importance is not adequately explained to justify a separate article now. We should prefer to find Alternatives to deletion and redirecting to the populated place article (which currently mentions the church in just one sentence) is a good one. --do ncr am 19:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is an appropriate solution for churches of only local significance. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2017 (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.