Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nashville Christian Advocate

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. -- Lear's Fool 13:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville Christian Advocate[edit]

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

Contested redirect - I tried redirecting this several times to Methodist Episcopal Church, South, as it did not appear to be notable outside the church itself, but the article creator kept reverting. References are all offline and uncheckable at this time. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a valid stub, with potential for improvement. About 400 hits in Google Books[1]. Most of them are just incidental mentions, but here, for example, is material that verifies the earlier history of the paper in A History of American Magazines 1850-1865[2]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources already in the article and those that Arxiloxos has found. There seems to be enough on this subject to make it worth keeping. I'll add that "references are all offline" is not a reason for deletion, and just because you don't have personal access to them, does not mean that someone else can not check them. LadyofShalott 22:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course! There is plenty of evidence of the subject's notability. The proposal to merge with the publishing denomination rests on an erroneous assumption that because church newspapers have a narrow audience in 2011, therefore they must always have had a narrow audience. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 03:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability doesn't require web references.SBaker43 (talk) 13:23, 21 March 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.