Deletion of Ogden Stake Tabernacle

Comment: Besides the sources in the article there are more indicating passing . http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=fY1aAAAAIBAJ&sjid=90kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6832,2341655&dq=ogden-tabernacle&hl=enhttp://books.google.com/books?id=3PyL0E_Z5zgC&pg=PT145&lpg=PT145&dq=%22Ogden+Tabernacle%22&source=bl&ots=0QtCIj992g&sig=AMKHlE2zmCoWjNzfhfW65VOdP-k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2VoHULb_DoS42gWT_oDYBA&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22Ogden%20Tabernacle%22&f=false.  Designed by noted architect.  The non-NRHP designation is just a red herring as buildings can pass our guidelines for any number of reasons (I dare the nom to AfD the non-NRHP Cathedral of Saint Vibiana for the same reason).  Same goes for the Honolulu Tabernacle with very impressive sources already in the article (full link to one http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/regional-studies-latter-day-saint-history-pacific-isles/4-last-tabernacle-refuge-oahu here, also included in http://books.google.com/books?id=QAYLAQAAMAAJ&q=%22The+Last+Tabernacle:+A+Refuge+on+Oahu&dq=%22The+Last+Tabernacle:+A+Refuge+on+Oahu&source=bl&ots=uDFZy4EOIQ&sig=26kMHI93c8VEvVVlyeLRQcPIgbw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jmAHUPzPFuTB2QWwt4nvBA&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA this book) This is looking |pointy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABLITY||WP:POINT)

Comment: The above Keep vote by Oakshade should be ignored, as '''no significant, independent sources have been provided''', and the rest of the "argument" boils down to a series of inapplicable |other stuff exists analogies
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: as havign only  local coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)