Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Doors


 * 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   speedy/SNOW keep. Nomination withdrawn after article was improved DGG (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Open Doors

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

Non-notable group with no sources cited that would suggest notability. Rwiggum (Talk /Contrib ) 14:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Lack of notability, impartialness. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - seems to lack required notability. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and a good reminder to follow WP:BEFORE. See Google News for coverage in Christianity Today, Washington Post, Dallas Morning News, LA Times, Time Magazine, Orange County Register, and plenty of less well known RS outlets. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep This is an extremely notable charity, undertaking important work in supporting persecuted Christians. This was originally mainly in communist lands, to which bibles were smuggled in quantity.  Since the collapse of the iron curtain, this has been more in China and Muslim countries.  The work is inevitably partly clandestine and so cannot be publicised, but it is very important.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I heartily agree with the efforts of groups such as this, but I also heartily agree with my own local church, and it's definitely not notable. If it's not publicised, it can't have the sources required for notability.  Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please reference the Google News search above before !voting. It clearly addressed you objection almost six hours before you posted this !vote. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable, independent sources that might establish notability? No encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Time Magazine isn't an independent RS? News to me. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is now sourced with 3rd party books and news outlets. Most of the sources are of Christian POV but I think they are reliable unless proven otherwise.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 04:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note I wasn't able to secure non-Christian POV sites because they're behind paywalls.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Other than TIME, that is. I'll get some later this week. Of course, their mere existence in Google News is enough to demonstrate notability.Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, added OC Register and LA Sentinel articles via ProQuest. Is there any specific reference anyone's seen on Google News or some other site which they want me to see if I can find? Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Several independant sources are already in the article and Jclemens has shown other independant sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep With no disrespect to the nom. Since the article was first nominated, independent sources toward its notability have been added and more shown to be available. I suppose this shows that WP:BEFORE is actually WP:AFTER. Good job to User:Jclemens.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements made to the article since the AfD was opened. The article is now sourced with WP:RS which show notability. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator Requested Closure - Enough evidence has been provided to convince me that the group is indeed notable, so as the nominator I am requesting this AFD to be closed. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 22:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for withdrawing your nomination. As a process note, we can't speedy close it unless the delete !voters change or retract their !votes, but a closing admin should have no problem seeing which way this is trending, and another admin may see fit to WP:SNOW close it before the time is expired. Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * and so I did.DGG (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2009 (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.