Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Book of Common Worship of 1946


 * 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 redirect to Liturgical books of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The Book of Common Worship of 1946

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This unsourced article is already covered by the more expansive article Liturgical book of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: more input would help to determine whether the content merits merging Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  02:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  03:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect into Liturgical book of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).Gusfriend (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Right now this is both unsourced and redundant, so it should be deleted. Doesn't need a merge; content already in the appropriate destination article. I don't think this needs a redirect, since what links here is other similar unsourced articles up for AfD/merge. -- asilvering (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete As it is already covered in Liturgical book of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). As far as merging it instead, I'm against it because the content isn't referenced and there's zero point in merging un-referenced material that will likely just be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Liturgical book of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) as an ATD as it is covered there and as noted above by the article itself does not warrant a merge due to the information being unsourced. I see the argument above against a redirect due to incoming links, but this is also a feasible search term and there seems to be no reason to have this not be a redirect as per WP:CHEAP. TartarTorte 15:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just redirect to section of nom's article dealing with this revision. We do not need to have a RS for the fact that it existed.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2022 (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.