Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latham, Alabama

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 Latham United Methodist Church. Daniel (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latham, Alabama

Latham, Alabama (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)

This case is similar to that of

NRHP, but again, there's nothing much here, and the labelled spot is a house somewhat south of the church. The NRHP forms suggest that, again, the church was built to serve a locale rather than as part of a distinct settlement; what I'm seeing suggests this was just a post office. Mangoe (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Let's see if there is any more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge I concur on the merge, as all the policies seem to indicate that merger is the best option for non-notable articles that are verifiable. The county is a good place for it. I'm willing to do the merge if you remind me when it's time.James.folsom (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say rather to Latham United Methodist Church for the very simple and pragmatic reason that if that article were fully expanded from the sources that it already has, it would cover this topic at least as well if not better than this article at hand does. Uncle G (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Apologies, I was imprecise in my language, I support merge to where ever is suitable. And agree with your assessment. James.folsom (talk) 00:29, 27 December 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.