Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TMS Global


 * 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. (non-admin closure) xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 02:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

TMS Global

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Created by an SPA, it has zero 3rd party sources, and a quick look didn't bring up anything good. Not notable. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

*Delete I’ve looked for other sources but not found any. Mccapra (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC) Striking my delete !vote in the light if sources found by others. Mccapra (talk) 06:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The denomination missionary society of a major denomination is certainly notable. I expect there should be no difficulty in finding sources though probably only in denominational publications.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Then please provide them. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Extensive third party coverage in reliable sources here, here, here, and denominational coverage here.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Except for the last one that really isn't a reliable 3rd party, the rest is not extensive coverage, sorry. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The first one has ~5 pages worth of material on the society, though it is spread out. The second one has about a half a page discussing the founding of the society. The third one has 12 sentences. The last one has 11 paragraphs. Both the last one and the third source are only about the mission society and nothing else. How can you call that not extensive coverage? That said, I agree that the fourth and last source is not third party.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Tough. There are next to no sources for its modern name, but "The Mission Society" has some. Still, it's not always the right hit, for example I think is not the same; we need to search for "The Mission Society for United Methodists". There is an in-depth source here:  but it is self-published, but if the article is kept itis probably good (if somewhat primary). There are brief mentions in  or, through I can't find any  in-depth coverage. It's really borderline. Given that protestant churches are somewhat for-profit organizations IMHO I'd have expected to find more promotional materials, but I guess it was founded only in 1984. I think I will do the rare thing and abstain. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The brief mentions linked above aren't significant coverage. I found the same, just the insignificant mentions, such as the article about a man, and just mentions that is he is a part of the organization.  That's why I nom'ed it.  I expected to find more before I nom'ed, but didn't.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Peterkingiron, and also because of its treatment in the following:, (Both of those from same publication),  , Bi-vocational church planting: a case study of the Mission Society for United Methodists in Karaganda, Kazakhstan A new solution to the African Christian problem,  and so on. They are not the most established of missionary endeavours, but they are clearly notable. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would argue that links to a store site selling interdenominational books, as well as a dissertation, are not WP:RS sources. That is the problem here.  The lack of 3rd party, independent coverage that is significant in scope.  The sources quoted in this AFD demonstrate the organization exists, but do not cross the line as far as WP:GNG is concerned.  This is why we require at least a couple of sources that are truly independent of the subject matter. The last source may or may not cover it significantly, but it is a pay to see and I don't see any quotes or extracts from it that would demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The last source is not pay to see. I assume you mean the second to last. But being behind a paywall doesn't make it not a source.--Jahaza (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But if you aren't quoting content from it, there is nothing to judge it by. Being behind a paywall isn't a license to just assume without quotes.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's significant coverage here; other mentions here (Oden was a big deal in Methodism); here's significant coverage of its founding in Christianity Today, a flagship magazine of evangelical-leaning Christianity.--Jahaza (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A mention in the WSJ here, an article about one of their missionaries with coverage of the organization here--Jahaza (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Further comment -- The fact that sources are behind a paywall does not prevent their being RS. In my view the main reasons for deletion should not OR and notability.  The test is whether an article is verifiable, not whether it is verified.  Dennis Brown is trying to be too rigorous in his approach to the subject.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * By wanting reliable sources and a demonstration a source behind a paywall actually covers the topic? That isn't being too rigorous, that is normal.  If you have access to the article, then providing some kind of quote on content should be easy.  If you don't, then you shouldn't be using it as a source.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Having reviewed the sources presented here (because the original article is essentially unsourced), I find the "Keep" arguments unavailing. The GNG asks for significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the article subject and all the sources presented lack at least one of those qualities. Those that have significant coverage are either not reliable or not independent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:56, 21 March 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.