Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children's Christian Crusade


 * 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. KaisaL (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Children's Christian Crusade

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that the sources are not that strong, but it is hard to find local news coverage from decades ago. These gatherings would have had a few small articles written about them in obscure papers and church magazines. The sources I found show consensus in what is stated in the article - that it was a Christian charity, active for decades, that organised many events throughout the UK. JianKwai (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The existence isn't in dispute, the notability is what is being disputed. The standard is significant coverage by reliable third party sources. And that coverage needs to be verifiable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete nothing in gnews . Article is fully of primary sources. LibStar (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete because not only is this all currently not convincing for any basic notability, my own searches have also come to show there's no other noticeable coverage thus we only have what's currently listed....which is not convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  18:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * (with some regret) Delete -- Since this is defunct, and became so just before the Internet, we are probably not going to get satisfactory sources. This seems to have been a two-person ministry.  My normal view is that such ministries are generally NN.  The lack of discoverable coverage also points to that conclusion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for WP:GNG and using self-published and primary sources, many duplicated Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG for lack of third-party material. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 00:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.