Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Missouri


 * 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   no consensus. Cirt (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Missouri

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An article that is really unnecessarily precise and just provides trivia on the subject. GrooveDog &bull; i'm groovy. 02:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete- I'm going to have to agree with GrooveDog. We should keep the article as a redirect and merge relevant info into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Airplaneman talk 02:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Several other similar articles exist for other areas so why not Missouri? Some of these pages have existed since 2007 and were created and edited by various contributors. Dmm1169 (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Canada
 * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Mexico
 * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Dominican Republic
 * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Tonga
 * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Marshall Islands
 * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Malaysia
 * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Singapore
 * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in South Korea
 * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Sri Lanka
 * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Ghana
 * I've had users give me special requests in creating similar pages (User talk:Dmm1169)Dmm1169 (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect - well, just on the face of it, I'd argue that the you shouldn't compare an article on the Church in State X to the Church in Nation Y, since one would expect nations to be more importance. Also, I don't see any (third party) references discussing the Church. I'd be happy with a redirect to the main church article. -- B figura (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect - or merge, if you really feel that Missouri is that important concerning the church. I think the biggest thing in MO is something about Mormonism in Independance, MO...? If anyone finds something notable then I say merge, but for now redirect.--fetchcomms 03:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article doesn't emphasize the distinctive places in Missouri which cause the LDS Church to distinguish it from, say, New Jersey or Oregon or Florida. (See Adam-ondi-Ahman, for example.) Certain places in Missouri are significant not only in Mormon history, but in Mormon theology. If this article were rewritten to focus on Mormon historical/theological sites in Missouri, it should be kept, but otherwise I don't see the need for a state-by-state analysis of the church and I would otherwise support a redirect per Bfigura. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Some of the other state articles might be deletable under this rationale; but if a separate article were justified for a US state, it would be justified for Missouri.  As Metropolitan90 points out, various locations in Missouri are important in Mormon history and lore.  The several country pages may be different enough from each otehr to justify separate articles, even as we have at least a few articles in Category:Scientology by country about that movement and its reception in various countries; some may be more worth while than others. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this one; much as I dislike it, Missouri is essential for LDS history, for example, the riots and lynching of early leaders. Relist the others, please, so we can discuss them separately. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - But isn't that history already discussed in articles on the church's history? Should we reproduce it in this article? (I'm not trying to ask a leading question, I'm just unsure of whether or not such a reproduction would be in line with / against policy or precedent). -- B figura (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As Bearian says, this is not the one to delete--there should be a discussion about the others. They may be justified on the same principle that we keep RC dioceses.   DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)\
 * Comment as Phil says below, wouldn't that apply to areas or stakes, rather than state-by-state organizations? -- B figura  (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep i think this articles problem is it doesnt indicate the notability of missouri for lds. thats an issue for article improvement, but even as a nonmember and total nonexpert, i saw this and remembered that this state has a part in lds history. the others may need merging if not notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Just because similar articles exist isn't enough of a reason to keep it. AS stated there might be just as much reason to delete those.  Seem like WP:OP to me.  Stupidstudent (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The LDS church is not organised by US state or by country, but by area (larger than a US state and occasionally coterminous with a country) and stake (typically smaller than a US state). Surely our coverage of the church should be organised in the same way, rather than imply the existence of levels of organisation that don't actually exist. I would suggest that we should have articles on all areas and on any particularly notable stakes. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. As noted by Bearian, Missouri is important to the LDS history. --Pink Bull (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The present article may not be especially useful, but quite a lot has been written about this topic (WorldCat). EALacey (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. MO maybe important in LDS history, but the article doesn't demonstrate this. Jnthn0898 (talk) 20:46, 17 November 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.