Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RUN 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 delete.  Sandstein  18:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

RUN Ministries

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem notable, searching Wikipedia doesn't find other articles mentioning it, Google returns nothing but its own pages and a couple of directory entries, issues haven't been attended to since templates posted in 2014. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Doesn't pass notability. Balle010 (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed. Not notable enough.  TruthLover123 (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Topic is significant in global context, and Christian evangelicals are working diligently in this outreach area. I think that the topic of this ministry should be seen on its own terms, not MERELY in terms of how Wikipedians have discussed notability for celebrities or politicians or commercial products. MaynardClark (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment If an exception to our notability guidelines should be carved out for areas of outreach that Christian evangelicals are working diligently in, this is hardly the place for that discussion. More to the point, if it is "significant in global context", reliable sources around the world are clearly dropping the ball here. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not notable, as best I can tell. With a name like "run ministries" it's difficult to get good results on an internet search. However, I would have expected the article's author (who commented here on this AfD) to have put more citations in the article demonstrating notability. The article has been hatnote-tagged for its entire 6 year history, has been severely over-tagged with categories, stub-templates, see-also links, and 13 wikiprojects!... and yet the article barely explains the organization. Normal Op (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You clearly have not seen many Wikipedia articles. Do you realize how many are sourced only to an organization or individuals webpage? How many are sourced only to IMDb? How many have existed for over a decade with no sources at all? OK, we should expect better, but the reality is there are some categories where we have huge numbers of articles on minor entities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I have. Yes. Yes. Too many. I'm aware of that and have myself AfD'd articles about tiny non-notable organizations sourced only to themselves for decades. What was your point? Reminder: NOTFORUM. Normal Op (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I get the same 2-3 'critics' who manage to show up whenever I weigh in on an article, even if without strong opinions - as if one is being stalked. Many organized groups are doing 'work' in the area professed by RUN ministries, so I doubt that they are sufficiently unique to warrant a distinct article.  But ought their name to be included in another article?  Honestly, I don't know.  I looked around in several ways and found (a) persons younger than I had expected and (b) very little that helped me build a deeper, wider, higher, better, more robust picture of RUN ministries.  I doubt that anyone NEEDS to seek journalistic comments when trying to rescue sexual slaves from bondage, but what's wrong with my expressing a sense that our priorities may not lead to the best effort on producing this organization's article.  This online encyclopedia may not be the mechanism for publishing a coherent picture of what RUN ministries is and has been (and maybe that's OK). RUN is an acronym for Reaching Unreached Nations (a missionary idea).  I tried to search on each of the variations of the founder's name and on the names of the key persons listed in the financial documents (which I thought would be good to include in part for that reason).  I agree with 'Summer' (and others) that 'primary sources' are not what Wikipedia 'wants' (but then, again, it's not Britannica). MaynardClark (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia needs to be based on secondary sources, not primary ones. That means we should not be sourcing to filed tax documents for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Article does not have strong secondary references. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this is notable enough to remain, though it does need to be restructured and further developed. --- FULBERT (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Directory entries, the organization's own site and a political blog do not combine to form notability. Insufficient coverage provided to meet WP:GNG and nothing meaningful found. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Barely any information found either. Funky Snack (Talk | Contribs) 08:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment -- This appears to be about a missionary organisation, probably one trying to spread its work too thinly with too many mission fields and objectives. Rescuing and releasing slaves is a worthy cause, but this is not an article about slavery or anti-slavery.  Apart from that there is far too little on what the organisation actually does.  It is just an ADVERT.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Driessen & Cole from the page are two references towards GNG, a third one is here.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How is Cole a source for this article? I see no mention of the subject organization (let alone meaningful coverage). It's cited as a source for Kay Hiramine being the director. While the article does mention him, its as a spy heading a Pentagon-front group called "Humanitarian International Services Group", not mentioned here.
 * As for Driessen, I'm seeing no indication it is an independent source. Along with heavily partisan language and cheerleading throughout, it ends with "There are few better ways to step forward … and begin your 2015 giving … than by helping now."
 * The new source you've provided is similarly heavily partisan and a cheerleader for the organization, again ending with an appeal for money for the organization: "We need to help RUN Ministries get as many blankets as possible, as quickly as possible, to ISIS survivors in their 'Community of Hope' refugee camps and safe homes. Eric and his teams are praSubstanying for and expecting a financial miracle this Thanksgiving."
 * Yes, there is "substantial coverage" in two of those, but it's not from "independent reliable sources". - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. Their work with rescuing women and children from ISIS is quite newsworthy notable. It's been around for 30 years and has plenty of news mentions. Batmanthe8th (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "News mentions" (which I don't see here in any case) are not helpful. For the organization to be "notable" we need substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, which we do not have. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It may well be a very worthy organisation, but it just doesn't appear to have the coverage in secondary sources required for wp notability. I think that it would be fine to put a paragraph about it in the Slavery in the 21st century article (perhaps with a redirect), but not a whole article at this point. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2020 (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.