Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Every Child Ministries


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Every Child Ministries

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Has been speedied once as non-notable group. Almost certainly written by someone with a COI. Short on references. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. See this Google News archive search -- Eastmain (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the current state of the article is not up to Wikipedia standards, but notability is present and an article could be crafted using available reliable sources. Jeremiah (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I couldn't find too many sources myself, most of them were on geocities or something. However, there are a few sources so keep per Eastmain. --Banime (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * STRONG Keep. Have just tagged the article for cleanip and rescue. Definitely notable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This group has a strong presence on Google and their programs seem important.Ngolo (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC) — Ngogo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Sources seem readily available, clean-up via regular editing. -- Banj e  b oi   00:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, non notable NPO. - References are mostly self-published the company or websites. Not a single reliable source. The GNews hits - five of them,mind you - are minor mentions. Most Google hits are listings for advertisement, lists of NPO's, or batches of YouTube links and webpages. I fail to see WP:RS or WP:N being met. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 00:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. EMIS, ECFA and Guidestar are reliable outside sources. I found many news articles on the internet, too.  Topics of the organization's programs appear to be significant.Yazole (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC) — Yazole (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment And how EXACTLY are EMIS, ECFA and Guidestar supposed to be reliable sources? The ECFA entry itself is not notable and is under discussion. What we have in terms of "sourcing" is 25 so called sources: 14 of which are from the company itself, 7 more of which are just non-notable websites, a couple of handbooks which are basically listings, and two news articles. The Ghana Chronicle is hardly the Ghana News or Accra Mail, it's not even as big as the New Ghanan. It's basically an "events" newspaper. The Monitor article is at least direct coverage. But I'm having problems buying the whole "very notable" argument. Having a presence on Google or having important programs or a pile of Geocities pages does not notability make, and the fact that three SPA's decided to weigh in on this issue just makes it more unlikely that we're going to miss anything encyclopedic here.
 * 'Comment'EMIS is the main--no, really the ONLY handbook for Evangelical and Protestant Mission Agencies--found in all libraries of Evang. & Prot. colleges, highly respected within its own community, which is, after all, the topic under discussion. The ECFA listing in Wikipedia may be undersourced, but within the Evangelical community it is certainly a highly respected organization. Sources for it are out there, too.  It's just that no one has yet made the effort to put them in Wikipedia.  I think the entry for this organization is worth KEEPing.Musoniki

(talk) 19:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Response -- Gee, that still doesn't seem like indepedant coverage. More like "a listing of charities and NPO's." WP:ILIKEIT isn't a keep rationale. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 16:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Comment'It's not how big the Ghana Chronicle is that is in question. The GC is a respected source of news on business and education, which is probably why news about this organization's school appears there.  One would not expect such a newspaper to be as popular as some others.  Many in Ghana are simply tabloids.  The Ghana Chronicle, on the other hand, is a serious news source and shows that news from the organization in question is considered seriously in one of the countries where they work.Musoniki (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Comment'I think the ECFA membership of this organization is significant because as a member of the ECFA, they have to submit to and publish an annual audit by an outside CPA, submit to the seven principles of good stewardship described on the ECFA website, and submit annual reports to the ECFA including even examples of advertising put out by the member organization, which are analyzed by them. I know that the ECFA even conducts random on-site visits to check on its members.  At least the ECFA provides an independent check on any self-published claims the organization makes.  Seems significant to me. Musoniki (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RS is not negotiable. Membership in an organization is *not* notability. If the group is notable, why isn't there coverage? That's all I want to know. I don't want to know your personal opinion on if a list of companies or audits is important, I want to know -- very simply -- why it should be here if it has no notable third party coverage. Third parties are groups that have no stake or direct connection to the group in question -- and obviously if ECM is a member of ECFA that's not an independent relationship. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 16:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets wiki standards for notability.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimmer1207 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)  — Swimmer1207 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Upped my "keep" to strong in light of the superb work over the last few hours in improving and sourcing the article. Good job!  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

&Keep. Coverage considerable. Ten news & features in newspapers (US) are quoted, as well as one from Ghana and one from Uganda, two magazine features, 3 school & similar sources, not counting references to ECM's own website or others, databases and handbooks.Musoniki (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, advert. Most sources are blogs, press-releases, or ECM's own website. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lack of references is not a reason for deletion. Nor is COI (since it doesn't seem egregiously non-neutral). Group is notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.