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. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Progressive Christianity

[edit]

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

Non-notable and considering that this is a religious group, I assumed I was going to find very little with search results and yes, I ended with zero reliable third-party sources. The links I found were either irrelevant to the group itself or not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It seems the article has never contained information appropriate for an encyclopedia and may never will, judging by the lack of notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't know about "never will", but there certainly doesn't seem to be enough to meet WP:ORG right now. And the presumption of WP:GNG seems out of reach as well. -- BenTels (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Just about enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG: abc.net.au, Chicago Tribune, The Gazette (Colorado Springs) and Christian Science Monitor. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the news sources mentioned above, there are quite a few more along that line, and several references in books on alternative Christianity.[1][2][3] The last book listed, by Ian Bradley, calls the group "Almost certainly the most significant" theological liberal Christian group. First Light (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's taking some digging, but I'm finding sources. As of the AfD listing this article I would agree had unclear notability per WP:FAILN. Looking at it finding sources to fulfill WP:GNG seems reasonable as well as finding sources to justify a neutral non-advertorial tone. Mr Wave (Talk - Contribs) 15:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per First Light and Tom Morris — meets GNG. I additionally add that in my opinion including religious umbrella groups such as this on a "low bar" basis is desirable, in the same way that maintaining a low bar for political parties is desirable. This is the sort of information that should be in encyclopedias. The article needs to be brought up to norms of style at some point, but that is an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Okay, work by others has yielded convincing results. -- BenTels (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2012 (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.