Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portland Oregon 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 05:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Oregon Temple[edit]

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

Only one source. Zero independent sources. p b p 13:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When omitting articles from Deseret News as a connected primary source, not many sources abound. This Portland Tribune article provides significant coverage, but not finding anything else. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which already has an entry about the temple, AFAICS nothing substantial to merge (but if there is, everyone is welcome to merge it). Cavarrone 09:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- A NN place of worship. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to this [1] Portland Tribune article, and the 2 others 1 from Desert and 1 form Portland Herald now on the page, the heaviest sourcing would be from the pre-construction phase. Also, there must have been news articles about the 1989 dedication , pre-opening tours, etc, in 1989. Big churches have stories about them. this one just needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appear to be sufficient references to establish notability. Bahooka (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been added since nomination and article looks sourced enough to be acceptable. Nate • (chatter) 14:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient evidence of notability now present. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added aswell as the expanding of the article. –Davey2010^Talk 18:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources indicated by E.M.Gregory and passing WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (written just before the close, posted just after it.) Passes GNG. The number of LDS temples is actually pretty small and chances are that all of them are the subject of multiple examples of independently published coverage. Carrite (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2015 (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.