Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Concern For Our Nation


 * 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   no consensus. leaning keep following improvements. Consensus is split leaning keep. TravellingCari 00:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Christian Concern For Our Nation

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability of organization not established Appraiser (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keepimportant topic, reported by BBC, could be notableSwimmer1207 (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The coverage the group has received is secondary in the articles cited. I'm not convinced it clears the general notability hurdle yet. —C.Fred (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I saw a few thousand ghits and was prepared to say keep, then I looked harder at the hits. blogs, christian activist websites (ie: not 3rd party).  Not one from a true 3rd party/WP:RS source.  I think that C.Fred is right, and they are simply below the threshold at this time.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 22:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources in article are poor (BBC included) but lots of stuff in various Christian news sources in the US. .  What a horrible name for a group that does what they do.  Hobit (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong KeepGive the author time to improve sourcing. This sounds like an influential group and people should be able to use wikipedia to find out what they're about.  Christian news sources are reporting on them, and this is what you'd expect for a group of this kind.Musoniki (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  11:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  11:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why again? Sources clearly exist (see above).  Hobit (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sources now added from The Times and The Guardian, plus the latter's criticisms summarising a Channel 4 documentary. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability has been established by significant coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2008 (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.