Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layton Utah Temple

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 no consensus Before renominating, consider merging to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah as an alternative per WP:ATD. So Why 13:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Layton Utah Temple[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. 2Joules (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom may be unaware that we do have articles on Category:Proposed buildings and structures in the United States.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:E.M.Gregory I am aware of the category. My concern was that at present we are not even aware of the location of the building. The only information is that the mayor knows the location, and he may divulge it in the future. That is why I wanted to remove this until at least the location and other information is known. 2Joules (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a news article about the site to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn’t really about speculation or rumormongering. The church announced its building a temple there so it’s going to happen in all likelihood. If the standard is to wait until ground is broken or they start going vertical, I guess that’s fine. But I would beef up the refs, especially as a couple are dead. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 12:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources are primary and article is WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice on recreation in the future. SportingFlyer talk 23:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We could move it to Proposed Layton Utah Temple for the nonce, and move it back to Layton Utah Temple after the dedication. The fact is that all Mormon Temples can be sourced to meet WP:SIGCOV. There will be WP:RS coverage of the location, of the construction, of the pre-opening opportunity for non-Mormons to visit, of the dedication and of the Temple going forward - there always is. There is alreay local TV coverage of speculation about exactly where it will be located; the Mayor says that the Church has already bought the land and he knows where it is but he's not telling. I have met Mormon temples before at AfD and, well, they can always be sourced, they just can. It is simply more efficient to KEEP the article and let it grow along with the temple. And it is better for the project to keep an article on a major church that people will expect us to have an article about.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing the article won't be able to be sourced if a location is announced - but in order to pass WP:GEOFEAT it needs the classic require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources. All we have now is the announcement (which has gotten some coverage) which may also violate WP:NOTNEWS. Best to follow procedure here and wait until a location is announced/construction starts. SportingFlyer talk 19:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft-ify until the specific location is public; I don't see how WP:GEOFEAT can apply at this stage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have properly sourced the article. I suppose we could draftify, but it seems more user-friendly to just keep it. There really is no doubt that a Mormon temple will be notable, and, if they cancel it, will be extremely notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it would be reasonable as well; as you say it will definitely be notable one way or another in a few year's time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:19, 21 June 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.