Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agape International Missions

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 no consensus. There has been no discussion for the past two weeks, so relisting again will not likely result in anything substantial. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ^tc_s 07:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agape International Missions

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

Fails the notability guidelines given in WP:ORG. Sources are either primary, self-published, or trivial mentions. Kelly ^hi! 14:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NORG. Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Jbh ^Talk 21:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A mass series of WP:POINTy nominations targeting User:Neelix-created articles, as stated as User_talk:Kelly#Neelix. Opposing on procedural grounds alone. This is apparently retribution over an issue now at this ANI thread as well as Neelix's editing around Tara Teng -- neither of which are related to the charitable organizations he is now taking to Afd. Per WP:BOOMERANG, it is Kelly's disruptive editing that is now a problem, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly evaluate each article on its merits. Legacypac (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would save me and other editors a great deal of time if articles had been nominated on that basis. Now, in this case, I don't see how it doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH, based on Gnews results. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sourcing inadequate BMK (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And Afd is WP:NOTCLEANUP. The organization has received coverage here, here, here, here, as well as a mention in the CNN here. That's several examples of major coverage (in roughly descending of significance) both in the West and Asia. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, the nominator has also brought Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Brewster to Afd. There's no reason to have two articles on such closely related topics, at any rate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor, minor coverage in an inflated article. Does not pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete there's a few passing mentions of this org on Google News, and the occasional puff piece. I feel that this should be nuked, then any worthwhile content added to the Prostitution in Cambodia article, that includes important details like the Human Rights Watch report noting that prostitutes get raped by the police - see the Vice report the high cost of cheap clothes that mentions that some prostitutes pulled out of brothels then get exploited by the garment industry (8+ hour shifts) then go back to the brothels - all while U.S. evangelicals publish how great they are. Better balance can be achieved in the Prostitution in Cambodia article. -- Callinus (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The issue is whether it passes WP:GNG. Moreover, what Callinus calls a puff piece other readers might describe as a feature article, or a reported story. More to the point, the coverage that comes to the top on simple news search, here: [1] is persuasive that this organization has the sourcing to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TROUT to Nom for asserting that that: "Sources are either primary, self-published, or trivial mentions." These are multiple reported stories by major media outlets.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's taking a very creative approach to the sources. They might be in major media outlets, but they're such trivial mentions - one of them is literally just mentioning that a dude they quoted works there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are either trivial and only mentioned in passing, local or from affiliated organisations. This needs to go. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Drover's Wife made me think twice about my first search. I am capable of errors of judgment in a first pass at assessing notability. I punched Agape International Missions + Brewster into a Proquest News Archives search and found, along with articles that mention the couple only briefly, long stories about Agape, the Brewsters, and their work in real daily newspapers (Vancouver Sun, The Sacramento Bee). Also articles that focus on fundraising events for the center. I put some sources on the page, rephrasing the article in a couple of places according to what I found in reliable newspapers. I'm not claiming that it's a great article. Only that coverage supports WP:GNG notability. I recommend that editors attempting to evaluate this organization, run a news archive search. This article in KEEPE.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note the Don Brewster article has sources about this mission not presently on this page. I have suggested merging Don Brewster into this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant news coverage: many dozen references to this organization in Google news. And they mention this organization in a significant way, as one of important organizations working in this direction (e.g.here). My very best wishes (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with info merged in from the Don Brewster articles and sources now found on the talk page. Can be turned into a good little article. Legacypac (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2015 (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.