Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crusader Union of Australia

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. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 10:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Crusader Union of Australia[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for organisations (contested prod) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Fails GNG as there are no reliable sources listed. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GNG does not require the RS to be listed in the article; it simply requires the source to exist. -- 202.124.73.125 (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 19:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 19:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 19:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is nontrivial news coverage in Christianity Today Australia and in this book, as well as mainstream broadsheet newspaper coverage going back to 1933, 1950, and 1952. There seems to be a failure of WP:BEFORE here. -- 202.124.73.125 (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also this book. -- 202.124.73.125 (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, and passes WP:GNG: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Also, per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, and not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable sources mentioned above providing significant coverage. St Anselm (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Also Castlemate is Push Polling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.91.165 (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Those books and newspapers are not reliable sources? -- 202.124.73.246 (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is not one Christian youth group, but a whole network of them. I am not clear about the relationship to a similarly named UK-based organisation, which is cewrtainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2012 (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.