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 merge‎ to Cheslyn Hay. asilvering (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Church, Cheslyn Hay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely not notable under WP:NCHURCH.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Cremastra

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
www.cannockchasemethodists.org.uk				✘ No
The South Staffordshire Local List				✘ No
Dunphy Church Heating				✘ No
Express & Star				✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Christianity, and England. Cremastra (u — c) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Cheslyn Hay under a header along the lines of ==Landmarks==. Noteworthy in context, but not necessarily independently notable. BD2412 T 19:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems reasonable. Cremastra (u — c) 19:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have reapplied {{subst:afd2}} due to malformed formatting. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cheslyn Hay. In addition to the sources listed in the article, it's likely there's content on the church in Cheslyn Hay - The Golden Years and The Bygone Days of Cheslyn Hay (both listed on a well known website). They're picture & caption books, but unable to determine amount of coverage. The church building also comes under WP:NBUILDING and WP:GNG so I believe the WP:SIGCOV requirement can be met by adding together reliable, independent sources, whereas WP:NCHURCH evaluates each source separately for significant coverage. Nonetheless, insufficient verified coverage to make more than a stub. Agree with the previous contributor's merge appraisal. Rupples (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cheslyn Hay, which currently uses an image of the church but doesn't otherwise mention it, let alone source it. Relevant categories can be attached to the redirect, if sourced in the target article. PamD 11:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• If it was a Historic England listed building it would probably pass WP:GEOFEAT but its only locally listed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at the British Newspaper Archive, which I only have search access to, there's a chance this might be able to be saved. Unfortunately there have been a lot of local newspaper mentions of this church so SIGCOV doesn't come up easily - for instance it may have been mentioned in a London paper in 1863 but I don't have access to that article. As it stands, the article as written does not pass our guidelines. SportingFlyer T·C 19:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cheslyn Hay. As PamD says, to have the church as the only Cheslyn Hay image, but not to mention it in the body of that article seems odd. It isn't sufficiently Notable for a stand-alone. KJP1 (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2025 (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.