Deletion of Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church (second nomination)

Comment: Nomination is based on Wikipedia:Notability|notability – subject has ''not'' "received significant coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources|secondary sources that are Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources|independent of the subject." Besides, SDAPI is not "mainstream Adventist publications" – many are well left- or right-of-centre who are quite happy to publish controversial material. Not that it matters, since the burden of sources lies on the contributor (
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:PROVEIT)

Comment: Breaking of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD|AfD policies on discussion; possibly even Wikipedia:Canvassing#Stealth canvassing|stealth canvassing, |meat- or |sock puppetry
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:MEAT||WP:SOCK)

Comment: per multiple sources cited from numerous independent publications, (e.g. ''Waymarks'' and ''In His Steps'') a detailed article in a well-known newspaper (The Clarion-Ledger), and per the outcome of the last AfD.  Nominator's argument that "Major contributors are church members (WP:COI)" is not an argument against the article itself, this is a behavioral guideline, not a content guideline; nor is it unusual regarding other articles about churches in Wikipedia.  According to  primary sources may be used: a) to make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and b) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.  These sources are so used.   Nom. seems to have (as stated) not checked all resources before making the nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PSTS)