Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premier Christianity


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Premier Christianity

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No indication of independent notability (secondary or third-party sources); all references I can find seem to be affiliated with the subject. QueenofBithynia (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment as another editor has done a good job at finding independent sources, I would favour keeping the article; however, this is just a weak keep on my part, so I will let the discussion run its course. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. No indication of independent notability like QueenofBithynia is saying. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreeing with QueenofBithynia and Fad Ariff. I did a quick Google search and found a few third party references, and while I don't think the websites are especially authoritative, they could be added to resolve at least the fact that there could be some independent mentions. I believe that someone could find sources, but as-is, this article should be deleted. --SidP (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC); since revision -- changed to Keep --SidP (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and United Kingdom.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, I've improved the article and added two fairly extensive independent sources. This was at one point the best-selling Christian news magazine in Britain and it remains influential, getting big name politician and religious leader interviews and articles. There's a lot more that could be done to expand the article (including a lot more info in those sources), but they establish notability and that secondary sources are available.--Jahaza (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding the sources! I know I'm the nominator, but I would support keeping the article now. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jahaza. StAnselm (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. It would be extremely appreciatable if any more source could be found. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep -- A Christian magazine that has been going for some 50 years (in successive incarnations) ought to have an article. It appears now to be part of the same stable as Premier Christian Radio, and I would have liked to see something about that.  A lack of sources for something that is in fact accurate is a reason to tag for improvement, not to tag for deletion.  I note that the nom now seems to agree.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep in view of the additional sources identified and added to the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, given the latest discovery of reliable sources. desmay (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2022 (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.