Deletion of Source Credibility

Comment: per . I did some preliminary research on this topic and have found it to be notable. For instance, a http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHMB_enUS291US303&aq=f&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Source+Credibility%22 general Google search pulls back 71,400 results and a http://scholar.google.com/scholar?rlz=1C1CHMB_enUS291US303&q=%22Source%20Credibility%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws Scholar search pulls back 7,080 results. That said, the current article needs some |tender love and care
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:CLEANUP)

Comment: Source Credibility covers more than just Public Speaking even if the article in its current state does not fully reflect that. This is shown by the results of a http://www.google.co.th/search?q='source+credibility' google search, where we find references to advertising, management, finance, human resources and jurisprudence. There could be potential for merging into communication or persuasion, but this is not the venue to discuss it. It is certainly a notable topic and I don't see the case for calling it 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: This is a classic example of an article with multiple academic independent reliable sources that treat this subject in a major way, including one peer reviewed article entirely about the subject. Although the article could use fleshing out (even in it's current version), it easily exceeded the |notability, |verifability, |reliable source requirements. It's not |original research nor an OT#OR|essay, as noted by many of the above. It also was improved during the AfD with added RS, structure, and content, all adding up to Keep. Also I oppose a merge as this seems to be more about the academic field than the merge targets that were suggested
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:NOT)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)