Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints


 * 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. Skomorokh, barbarian  00:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnecessary list, another example of US-centricism by focusing on what is a dominantly American church, bad precedent etc. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The content cannot really be merged anywhere, so I would like to see an argument that would satisfy deletion of the page if it existed in isolation. We cannot delete a page for being Americentric, and "unnecessary" seems highly subjective to me.  -- Soap Talk/Contributions 22:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It doesn't matter what country it is in. You can have a list of all the churches of any religion in any nation.   D r e a m Focus  11:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not aware of any policy that says we have to delete articles in order to maintain balance between U.S. topics and those of other countries. –  j ak s mata  13:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd add that there are less than 150 such temples in the world. So what if it's a "dominantly American church"?  We have an entire Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures out there.  If one of them takes the form of a table, more power to it. Mandsford (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints These are differently formatted versions of data which all belongs together. I would add that the UScentric assertion is deeply ignorant, as simply looking at the list would show. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification: By "merge" in this case I mean essentially replacing the "list" article with the "comparison" article and adding images as one of the columns. Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge as suggested by Mangoe. SDY (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Oppose Merge - The information in this article is sortable, unlike the other list. It serves a different purpose in that it allows the information to be grouped and compared. I don't know what to say about the nominators reasons. Although started in the United States, the Church is very international with deep history in England, Denmark, Latin America, South America...and the list itself has many temples listed that are located in various parts of the world. I really don't see how it is an example of US-centricism. -- Trödel 22:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In general it seems to me that the "list" article is inferior to the "comparison" article. There's no reason that the sorting tabular features of the latter cannot be applied to the former. Mangoe (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see how the information on the two pages seems to overlap, but I agree with Trödel that a merge would be inappropriate. The two pages have distinct purposes: The "list" article has less info, and it's purpose isn't to give a large amount of info on each temple, but to list articles on each individual temple. The "comparison" article would be unwieldy in that sense, but its many sortable columns are ideal for comparing different aspects of temples. You could use it to determine how many temples were dedicated by a particular individual, for example. –  j ak s mata  13:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need to keep the list article in some state of purity by keeping this other data away from it. Also, the list article is actually the larger of the two (22,737 at present vs. 16,308 for the "comparison" article) and it is also much longer on the screen, due to the images and the non-tabular format. Depending on how you balance room counts against photographs, it doesn't really give significantly less information either. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The list article got its current format as a result of recommendations during the featured list nomination, and I'm not inclined to make any changes that would put its featured status at risk. -- Trödel 11:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I dont see it as us centric, any more than required by the fact that the religion is US in origin.   a good summary article. This is the appropriate way to present the material--the individual articles will expand on the details. Essentially, it's a list, and a very good one at that. How the articles should be edited is not a question to be dealt with at AfD.    DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)    DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC).


 * 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.