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. There were no !votes for deletion, except as per the nom (which were unconvincing as the article was fully sourced even at the time of filing), and concomitantly no cogent arguments for losing the article, even though this has been open nearly three weeks. There were, however, repeated proofs made of notability, through reliable sourcing. The behavioural issue is being discussed, as stated, at WP:ANI. ( non-admin closure) _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Religion Communicators Council

Religion Communicators Council (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Being nominated to deletion due to lack of notability and lack of reliable sourcing PoetryFan ( talk) 18:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC) — PoetryFan ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Delete - The article was given 7 days to avert deletion and no valid arguments were presented to countermand deletion and no noticeable improvements were made to the article. PoetryFan ( talk) 18:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC) — PoetryFan ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

comment The deletion page was created more than a week ago but never added to the log, and there was no afd2 template at the top; I have now added the template to this page and the nominator added it to the log yesterday. I have no current opinion on whether the article should be deleted or not. -- bonadea contributions talk 07:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: I have struck through PoetryFan's !vote as (s)he is already the nominator. — Psychonaut ( talk) 15:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep it's vitally important to search for all three names that this organization has used since its founding in 1929. For example, searching for its previous names, one finds this and this in Speaking of Faith: Public Relations Practice Among Religion Communicators in the United States, published by ProQuest. Taken as a whole, along with the Gnews hits, most of whom seem to be from a religious new service, or its Wilber Award, covered here by the Star-Banner news service, I believe we do have enough. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep I was able to find numerous reliable sources -- which are included in the current article -- and I am not really clear which policy this article hasn't met. Alicb ( talk) 13:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment User:PoetryFan (including their deliberate falsification of User:Alicb's vote, above) is now up for discussion at WP:AN#Request ban for User:PoetryFan. Thanks. Phil wink ( talk) 02:12, 7 September 2016 (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.