Deletion of Lima Rescue Mission

Comment: Doesn't seem notable, and possible |OR since there are no sources. Fails G. &ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:ORG)

Comment: unless notability is asserted and sources provided per  and . As it stands this is just an interesting history article that restates what's on the mission's web page
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: It's too large to merge, and per , "Eventually, as the article becomes overly large due to more verifiable information being added, information on individual places can be broken out into individual articles. This process should begin with those places which have the most verifiable information on them, and therefore have the strongest case for a stand-alone article. See below for suggestions on how to do this."  This justifies the existence of this article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Places of local interest (WP:LOCAL)

Comment: per a confluence of  and /. This is a city-wide mission which is part of a larger Association of Gospel Rescue Missions|association and doesn't merit an individual article. Independent coverage extends to a single local news article. Nothing in the article demonstrates notability (being a mission is not ''inherently'' notable). That this organisation exists and functions is not good enough to warrant its inclusion. Has it received any type of award/recognition for its good work (which has been published in third-party reliable sources)? Has it received state-wide or national coverage? Has it achieved fame or notoriety in any other way
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Places of local interest (WP:LOCAL||WP:ORG||WP:CORP)

Comment: I don't mean to sound over-the-top here, but someone has taken the time to write this article, fairly well I must say, and the deletionist attitude being presented here is not justified by naming guidelines all over the alphabet. I don't see the harm in leaving the article on Wikipedia. There are stubs that don't even approach the detail of this article, and yet they are left alone, with no calls to delete them. Yes, there are lines that must be |upheld, however, this article is well within bounds. Furthermore, this article is not on a controversial issue, and to put it under the same scrutiny as a more controversial article is ludicrous
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)