Deletion of Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America

Comment: The relisting rationale is weak. If consensus is to keep because a topic and its treatment is encyclopedic, as is clearly the case here, that should be sufficient under . There is no mandate that an inferior Notability '''''Guideline''''' should trump the '''''Policy''''' (higher level law) of IAR
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: But  assumes some sort of reasoned analysis as to ''why'' particular policy or guidelines should be disregarded (the reason "a rule prevents you from improving" WP). "Clearly encyclopedic" beg the question|begs the question and is not such a reason (might as well say "keep it just because" or "useful"). Nobody has explained why denominations should be per se notable regardless of coverage or why we should have WP articles about any org with such scant coverage. And a majority vote () isn't sufficient for an IAR jusitification either. Now, at least some have argued this particular org meets , but for reasons given above I don't think so and that ignores the lack of substantial coverage in any case
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:NOTAVOTE||WP:NONPROFIT)

Comment: So for those following this at home, the following three refs, and only these three, are what the keepers think meet  (): http://books.google.com/books?id=9cJjleldIVEC&pg=PA273 The Baptist River, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1997/may19/7t659d.html CT news brief, & http://books.google.com.au/books?id=7FQUAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Association+of+Reformed+Baptist+Churches+of+America%22&dq=%22Association+of+Reformed+Baptist+Churches+of+America%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JPcqT8rUKurDmQXi2czxDw&redir_esc=y Handbook of denominations in the United States. These don't strike me as coming close to meeting the guidelines. Just about any Parent-Teacher Association or homeowner association could meet this level of coverage
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:NONPROFIT)

Comment: under . Clearly an encyclopedic topic, treated encyclopedically. This belongs in Wikipedia. There is no mandate that we parse the universe for so-called "reliable independent sources" for things that should be kept on a per se basis, as is the case here, in my opinion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: I have relisted this debate because the current keep comments do not address the deletion concerns. The article is up for deletion because the nominator feels that, due to a lack of |reliable ''third party'' sources, the subject may not meet the notability guidelines. In order to meet either the |non-profit notability guidelines '''or''' the |general notability guidelines the organization needs to be the subject of multiple reliable third party sources. Simply claiming that the subject is notable without explaining how it meets the notability guidelines is a fairly weak argument
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:IRS||WP:NONPROFIT||WP:GNG)

Comment: Denominations are generally notable because they almost always pass . This one certainly does, given the number of books discussing the denomination. -- Special:Contributions/202.124.72.148|202.124.72.148
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NONPROFIT)

Comment: Several editors !voted '''keep''' on the basis of the specific guidelines in , and explained quite clearly how the two parts of that guideline were satisfied (for example, because of the 3rd party sources cited in the article, one of which – the ''Encyclopedia of American Religions'' – provides substantial coverage). And apart from the nom, '''every''' !vote has been "keep." -- Special:Contributions/202.124.74.18|202.124.74.18
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NONPROFIT)