Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Crusaders

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 delete. Length of existence does not guarantee notability, and the sources provided are insufficient. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Crusaders[edit]

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

No secondary sources found, only false positives. Only sources are primary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to establish any notability. I can't find any in google either. Per AGF I'd leave this AfD run for a little while to give author a chance to show impartial notabilty. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated above. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is not about anything notable. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A remarkable subject: a syndicated radio program that has been around since 1936! Online sources may not be the alpha and omega here. But here are a few sources that I was able to turn up in a quick search.[1][2][3][4][5]--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If this really has been going for nearly 75 years, surely it is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable based upon longevity. The sourcing of this article currently stinks, but that's not a terminal illness... Seventy-five years for a radio show seems a slam dunk for notability. Carrite (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lenght of existence is not an established criteria for notability in WP. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be notable, and no decent secondary sources. Also, most of the rocks on the planet have been around longer than 75 years, but not every one deserves an article. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Has been around for 75 years, but has done nothing else notable. Drewbug (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2010 (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.