Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education for Ministry (2nd nomination)

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. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Education for Ministry[edit]

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

Did a good faith search for independent and reliable sources (using Academic Search Premiere and various Google tools) that would support WP:GNG and came up empty handed. This was previously an AfD candidate, which was a no consensus vote, mainly because of promises from editors to rescue and build the article. This did not happen, and given that it's been four years, seems unlikely to happen. AstroCog (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A gsearch indicates this is a widely used programme throughout the world. Enough to confer notability. asnac (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is indicated in this gsearch? Existence isn't notability, nor is the fact that it may be widely used. Unless it has attracted notice in independent and reliable sources, it probably doesn't warrant an article. I couldn't find enough beyond primary sources and program advertising on pages for related institutions to justify an encyclopedic article. Perhaps this content could be merged with an article of programs of this type? AstroCog (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a little puzzling that there aren't more readily available sources, but I found two sources through GScholar [1] and [2] which discuss the program. Mangoe (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a large number of Google Books references and a handful of Google News references. Clearly meets WP:GNG. -- 202.124.75.221 (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2011 (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.