Morden Baptist Church: One is a primary source (the Charity Commission website).  Two of the others are local papers and are short articles of a few sentences.  The fourth is significant coverage in the Baptist Times .  The fifth is one sentence about the church's war memorial.  There is a passing mention of the church in this book , which I have not added.  I cannot find other coverage to add.  I do not think the church is notable under WP:NCHURCH , WP:GNG or WP:NCORP .  Coverage is run of the mill .  It has been tagged as a local interest article which may not be notable since 2010.  Tacyarg ( talk ) 13:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Religion , United Kingdom ,  and England .  Tacyarg ( talk ) 13:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NCORP doesn't apply to churches "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams."  So it's down to WP:GNG which allows local sources, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks.  That's odd - I see the sentence you quote, but the guidance also reads "Individual religious organizations (whether called congregations, synods, synagogues, temples, churches, etc.) must meet the notability guideline for organizations and companies or the general notability guideline or both".  So it both explicitly excludes and includes churches?  Tacyarg ( talk ) 00:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not very clear but I think it means if they pass WP:NCORP that's great but if they don't they can just pass WP:GNG , imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes its a building not an organization though the church may have one.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 17:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Prob delete - on the one hand, it is highly likely that a British religious institution of this age would have RS.  Late 19 century churches often had local newspaper coverage and maybe well feature in books written about local history.  On the other hand, it seems curlish to expect anyone other than interested editors to have to go to the effort of finding them.  So unless someone finds more RS we can assess (I can't at present even though I believe it probably exists), I'm going to say WP:TNT on a largely promotional page until/unless someone who has access to appropriate sources can rewrite.  JMWt ( talk ) 13:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Morden and add a couple of the found sources (particularly the 1935 one) there.  It's a somewhat prominent building with an active congregation, but not of wide enough interest to warrant its own article.  It appears the original article was written for promotion, rather than to describe a genuinely notable building.  Sionk ( talk ) 16:59, 25 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect