Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Rose of Lima Catholic Church Reno Nevada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Reno#Parishes of the Diocese of Reno. I'll also rename to St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church (Reno, Nevada) as suggested. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Rose of Lima Catholic Church Reno Nevada (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)

Not notable under any of the thresholds, WP:GNG, WP:ORG, or WP:NCHURCH. Cabayi (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to a list serves absolutely no purpose that I can see. Redirecting to a paragraph or section with relevant prose I can understand, but I don't see the benefit of any renaming or redirecting. Bungle (talkcontribs) 21:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a church in the Reno Diocese; this is the exact purpose of redirects (and the name as-is doesn't make any sense; it's not a Mormon temple). Doesn't harm anything to do so. Nate (chatter) 01:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially what you're suggesting though is to create a new article St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church (Reno, Nevada) and redirect it elsewhere, for no apparent purpose or reason? That is technically a different discussion altogether, and still involves the current article's content being deleted and the article being made redundant, so surely a delete vote makes sense here? Bungle (talkcontribs) 19:43, 10 April 2018 (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.