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. Xclamation point 01:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RBC Ministries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No assertion of notability, small organization Tznkai (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A significant organization within Christian publishing and broadcasting -- its flagship media outlet, the publication Our Daily Bread, is highly notable. A Google News search confirms notability: [1]. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree, my impression is that this organization has a large footprint in U.S. christian broadcasting/publishing. I will say in support of the nom though, that the Google hits don't really reflect stories about the ministry itself. Still, whiie notability is not inherited, I can't really wrap my mind around the publication being notable and the organization directly responsible for publishing it failing. Worst case scenario, the information here should be merged to Our Daily Bread with a redirect left in place. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its been my impression that the author of notable material is not necessarily notable - you the distinction more in fictional work articles.--Tznkai (talk)

• Keep But not for the reasons above (which are largely reason for Our Daily Bread being notable, which is not questioned here). There are sufficient verifiable 3rd party references (CFO, Ann Arbor Times, along with some other brief mentions in a variety of print sources) to establish notability of this company per WP:N.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - nearly went for delete now and recreate with when sourced, but it reads as if notable so survives, imo, as a poor article about a somewhat notable topic. Properly sourced it will be secure. Springnuts (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2009 (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.