Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Lawrence with St. Paul's, Kirkdale

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 Kirkdale. Content has already been merged, no other valid close. StarM 02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Lawrence with St. Paul's, Kirkdale[edit]

This seems to ba a non-notable local church. But I'm not completely sure what our current inclusion standards are at this point, so I'm sending it here for further discussion. B. Wolterding (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked for independent refs, found various lists of churches, found some marriages, but could not find any indication of notable architecture, events etc. I do not know of any special policy for articles on churches, temples, mosques etc. as opposed to other types of building or organization, but assume they must be notable for something other than just existing. The churches could, of course, be mentioned in the articles for Kirkdale, Merseyside or Anglican Diocese of Liverpool. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 23:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 00:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kirkdale. I agree that it is a NN church, or at least notability is not established. I therefore have merged most of the content (excluding staff) into the article on the place. This is usually the best solution for articles of this kind. This renders this article unnecessary; hence the redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge was already done, so deletion is no longer a valid option under the GFDL. No reason visible to keep a standalone article, so the closing admin should complete the merge by redirecting this page. GRBerry 18:05, 8 January 2009 (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.