Deletion of Second Reformed Church Hackensack

Comment: The article, as expanded by RAN, merits retention based on the reliable and verifiable sources about the church. Again, we have a nominator who refuses to comply with , which requires seeking alternatives to deletion. Even if the nominator genuinely believes that the article should not exist on a standalone basis, the box that displays above this page when editing rather clearly states '''"When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why."''' All we have her is further abuse of process from an editor who simply won't comply with policy (as usual
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: clearly has the sources to meet  requirements based on the Tiffany connection
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)