Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peniel Revival Ministries Inc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. —Kurykh 01:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peniel Revival Ministries Inc

Peniel Revival Ministries Inc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Non-notable organization, per WP:ORG. The only cited sources are websites of the organization itself. A quick google test gets 49 hits from 14 unique websites. Notability isn't asserted and the article reads like a promotional piece in places. Andrew c [talk] 14:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Out of those fourteen unique websites, none of them provide any unbiased information. There are no multiple, non-trivial sources. Clearly does not satisfy WP:ORG. Trusilver 15:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep I believe consensus of editors can believe the article is encyclopedic or has encyclopedic value. The sited sources can be fixed if the need be. And The notability is correct and fixed. The reason why the organization website opens up is because that is the only way i can open up the PDF files that supports the work of this organization. Please do not delete this article as it is a stub to the Christian non-profit organizations article. This article about a Christian organization is a stub. Also it can be considered a Christianity-related article stub. This article is just like the Lakewood church article or the Global Pastors Forum article. This is about a Christian organization/church. It is worth encyclopedic value!!--The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apfaq (talk o contribs) 17:12, 17 July 2007.
  • Comment - Honestly, I don't think you can claim that "consensus" has anything to do with it- the article is barely 6 days old, and you've been almost entirely the sole editor. The only edits from other editors have been to place deletion tags (two occasions), and to specify a link to avoid a disambiguation (which you reverted, claiming that the user was adding some sort of spam link, although considering the edit history is right there, I don't know what you're talking about). The article is simply too young and too obscure for one to use the "silence equals consensus" argument.--C.Logan 19:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Commentwell Logan, it is after all a new organization and a new article. All the more reason to leave it be and let it be edited and rated by others. It is worthy enough to keep and the references seems to be ok. That hongooi did something like Punjab and it redirected the page to some popup ad. So i simply got rid of it. Anyway the current tag punjab links to the very same article so his edit was not needed. By the way this is what it said: 05:18, 17 July 2007 Hongooi (Talk | contribs) m (8,803 bytes) (Disambiguate Punjab to Punjab (India) using popups) . Its not a good idea to use popups especially since it lead to advertisements. So that edit was deleted. However getting back to the topic at hand, This article is worth Keeping--Apfaq
  • Comments - Apfaq, this is a little humorous to read. "Popups" are a Wikipedia tool which allows for easier editing. It doesn't have anything to do with "Pop-up Ads" like those you run into on other websites. For a better understanding, read this. Concerning his specific edit, it does not lead to a popup ad, so I'm not sure how you're claiming that it does. And in fact, Punjab and Punjab (India) do not link to the same place. If you're unaware, the article currently has the latter link, with a tag which simply says "Punjab"- therefore, the link goes to the article you want because Hongooi changed the internal link to the correct page. Punjab simply links to a disambiguation page, which includes several places and things which bear the name "Punjab". Generally, we should avoid linking to disambiguation pages, and this is why Hongooi changed the link (and why I re-applied his change after you'd reverted it). Concerning this AfD, it is good to know your own opinion, but I'm certain that others will disagree. I'm uncertain about what should be done, because I haven't yet reviewed the sources and the information present. If one can verify notability in accordance to WP:ORG, then this discussion will be over. From what I see, however, no such standards have been satisfied.--C.Logan 20:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Well This is a new organization and it is mostly based in India. So in India, they do not have the best of online information systems especially for a charity organization working in wilderness and remote village areas. So i would expect the internet references to this organization to be few. But i think since it is a 501c organization registered in the US, it does have the right to classify as WP:ORG. The references cannot be changed in the URL form because it is a flash site so you cannot go to specific articles. Anyway, i think this is a great organization and it should be kept around. ApFaq 1:31 July 17 2007 (EST)
  • Comment Thank you for signing your comment. Ok, first of all, I understand your passion towards this subject matter, and I ask you to please not take my nomination for deletion personally. I just believe, at least in the current state (coupled with a little internet research done on the organization) that his organization does not meet out notability for organization inclusion criteria (WP:ORG). The main point is the articles does not contain information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. The source for nearly all of this information is the organization's website. Notability has to be established through secondary, independent sources. thinkingaustralia.com is a wikipedia mirror, and thus cannot be cited per WP:RS. The letters of support were never published in a secondary source, so they are problematic as well. -Andrew c [talk] 17:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment well i am not taking it personally but you see, All we have are paper sources and sources that were directly send to us, such as newspaper articles,letters of recommendation, authorization forms from Indian government etc. How are these be published?? If you can, can you remove this article from the deletion criteria? Give me time and i can scan all these documents and upload them to wikipedia and then cite them. Remember, i just started this article yesterday. Please give me time to edit it and make it worth the 'notability standards'. I am frustrated because i started this article as a stub and all of a sudden people want to delete it. It has not even been 24 hours since i started adding content to this article. Please give me time, i need more than 5 days to access the records and pull up information to be scanned and then uploaded. Some records are in India in paper format so that will also take time for me to receive.
  • Very Strong Keep. This is a valid non-profit organization that has done numerous things in the past. Notability is asserted and Notability is not an issue in this article. This article clearly does satisfy WP:ORG. AONServers.com 2:55, 17 July 2007 (EST)
  • Comment - Would you like to cite anything specific, or are you going to remain entirely vague concerning how it satisfies what you say it does?--C.Logan 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Per the Guide to deletion, it should be noted that MicGoogle/"AONServers.com" has a sparse edit history (visible), and the only other article (barring a third article which is of a related topic) on the individual's history at voting time was an article which user Apfaq, the creator of the article listed here for deletion, had also been editing. It appears that the user still lists, as his signature, the name of a deleted article (AONServers, which he had created), which was speedily deleted for reasons of "spam/advertisement". Given that one of the issues with this particular article is its promotional tone (derived from a lack of independent sources), and given that the article with which both individuals were involved with was of local importance and interest (a high school), and given that the last edit (as well as all of the user's visible edits) before MicGoogle's vote here was made on February 14th, I find it reasonable to cast a critical eye on this user's involvement in this voting process. Again, this note is presented per the Guide to deletion, and therefore it should be taken not as an attack on MicGoogle (as all could be coincidence or misunderstanding), but simply as a set of circumstances which should be considered by the closing administrator.--C.Logan 20:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per MicGoogle / AONServers.com. TonyWonderBread 13:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per reasons cited by Andrew c and Trusilver. I've worked to improve the article in the last article, if at least to make it presentable (it was previously a mess of promotional material, filled with praise and such). As it is, this article seems to have been created to promote an organization, and as it stands I haven't seen anything which makes the organization notable in accordance with WP:ORG, even if it is relatively small. Any shade of notability here seems mostly forced, from my observation. The user involved in the articles creation and development has created 2 (IMHO) useless and deletion-worthy categories in conjunction with this topic and has placed these category tags on articles to which they do not even apply, in addition to placing inapplicable categories into this article as well, This leads me to believe that regardless of the actual notability of the subject, the article (and the categories which accompany it) were placed here for the purposes of promotion, and therefore I would suggest that any arguments of notability be viewed with a discerning eye.--C.Logan 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Apfaq, you're missing an important point here. We really don't care what online resources this organization has. The point to a Google test is to see who else might have taken note of it. If virtually no one else has, then the organization really can't be said to meet the de facto criterion of notability. Wikipedia is not a place to promote obscure organizations. The article claims it's been "...recognized by numerous other Christian organizations, denominations, churches and other religious missions as one of the leading Christian Charity organizations committed to reaching to teach...." If that was true, then it would be mentioned in many places, not just a few, and you'd have no lack of independent sources. Instead, of the sources cited for the article, only two of them are not created by either you the organization itself, and they're both letters that don't actually support the statements for which they're cited.
But it's just a little disingenuous of you to plead low-tech when one of the organization's websites is so slick. Plainly you have at least adequate online resources available. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments That site was created via donation by a generous supporter. We are on the low tech end here. I am not pleading it, because that is the reality. That site was updated and hosted earlier this year. apfaq
Low tech? You don't need any tech beyond a PC and an Internet connection to make a website of any complexity, and you plainly have access to both. But that was a side issue. Where can we find anything said about this organization other than itself? That's the crux of the matter. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments well Logan fixed this article up ALOT. Can it please remain as a stub? Also, you Americans do you understand what life is like outside of the western countries so please do not get me started on low tech and about not having internet capabilities for recommendations or recognition on search engines.
  • Yes, he did quite a bit of good work on it, in my view an act of extreme good faith on his part. It can only be out of his innate sense of fairness that he wants to ensure the article is judged on the merits, as he explains below. Nevertheless he didn't fix the main problem with it -- not for want of effort, but because it's not possible for him to. It needs independent sources, and it doesn't look as if there are any. In my view, you could possibly justify at least a mention of this organization in a broad, general article on this kind of outreach, but I just can't see it as an article standing on its own. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Indeed, the lack of non-biased sources was a problem. It was curious to go over the text and hear how wonderful and effective this organization is, because if this is truly the case, then it would seem that we might find more third-party sources which state as such. The inherent flavor of the article, which I'd hoped to tone down, was that of a mild propaganda. Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, Apfaq, not a bulletin board or a commercial spot. As it seems that you are involved with this organization, I'd like to make it clear to you that we are here on Wikipedia to present things in an encyclopedic manner. This is why we are asking for some good third-party sources- you may have all the information in the world on your organizations website, but that information, like it or not, has a specific purpose, and is thus inherently biased. I'd be glad to help you develop the article if it manages to pass this AfD.--C.Logan 03:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm just being fair, so that the article will be judged on notability rather than presentation (and it's easy to convince people to delete an article when it's full of peacock terms and whatnot). Concerning the stub thing, I'm afraid that the article is no longer a "stub". A stub article is generally 1-2 paragraphs long, and offers just enough information for other editors to expand upon. Just because the article can still be improved at this point doesn't qualify it as a stub. And anyway, let's not get off topic with cultural divide discussions about technology.--C.Logan 20:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Pardon this side comment, but I would suggest that you log in before you begin editing, Apfaq. Additionally, if you want to sign your comments (and please do) easily, just insert this at the end of your comment: --~~~~ .--C.Logan 20:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of unbaised independent sources. Article can be re-created if it becomes, in wiki terms, notable. Springnuts 12:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I looked at the sources given; some are self-generated, and others such as the police memo, are rather trivial, and none have the sort of public accountability required by reliable sources. While this may be a quite worthy evangelical ministry, it isn't ready to go into an encyclopedia yet. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It might be worth keeping around, especially if more resources and references can be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.213.238 (talk • contribs) — 71.190.213.238 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete All references are to sources that do not qualify as reliable sources - No notability established. Corpx 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - it would seem that more work can be done on sources. I was confused with it because there has been a Peniel Mission in the Seattle area for many years. Given that Google has over 46,000 hits for Peniel Mission, if nothing else, this article allows for some distinctions of the different areas of focus of the these groups with a similar name. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:N; no reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the subject are provided proving notability. VanTucky (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability has not been established through independent attribution. --Dhartung | Talk 19:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is no more point to this discussion. The reason why this article was tagged because of having less than satisfactory references. Well i dug through some old papers and came through some documents that i decided to cite. There are plenty of references for this article, especially when considering its length, and notability is no longer an issue. This article does satisfy the reference requirements and they are of reliable source. As i mentioned earlier, due to many technological difficulties etc., some of these did not make it to the internet, but i do have document and physical paper proof of these references. I was advised by an Wikipedia user not to upload these documents as they are violation of copyright laws and wikipedia terms. I hope every user that has commended here, including the user that tagged this article, visits and reads the new references. Thank you and hope this helps. If i need to add more reference, please tell me and i will be more than glad to do so. ApFaq 04:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    • First, let me suggest {{Infobox Non-profit}} instead of {{Infobox Company}}, which is really designed for profit-making enterprises. As far as references go, I'm afraid you need a few more or at least you need to provide more complete citations. You give article titles (they can hardly be standalone publications) but the names of no publications. We can't tell if these are just church newsletters, personal letters, or articles in widely-circulating magazines. And you still rely too heavily on your own material. The article also cannot stand as written even if the citations were good. You have produced a promotional piece, not an encyclopedia article, even going so far as to write in the first person. We don't do this (in articles -- discussion pages such as this one are another matter). This isn't a reason to delete the article as such things can be rewritten, but they don't predispose anyone to a "keep" decision. I very strongly suggest you review Wikipedia policy on these subjects, beginning with the neutral point-of-view and what we mean by reliable sources. You might also find the Manual of Style helpful, and if you look at an explanation of what Wikipedia is not you might see what the problem is from our perspective. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've noticed the changes, and I've fixed a few. The formatting problems alone filled me with a gasp of fear, but I've set most things in line (although I'd rather not be the one to change to infobox type). I agree with Csernica's comment above, anyway. Ultimately, I'm not sure we should be supportive of this article at all if it's going to turn into a promotional pamphlet every time one of the third-party users neglects to check up on things.--C.Logan 06:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete One way to verify some of a charity's assertions is by IRS Form 990, the tax return required of all non-profit, 501c3 organizations. The article states that Peniel Revival Ministries Inc was founded in 1989, however, according to [[1]] the main online depositoty for 990 forms (free registration required), the charity only received its 501c3 status in 2006, and thus there are no 990s on file online to review and verify the articles assertions (e.g. if the charity had $10,000 in income, it is doubtful it would have enough impact to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, especially when notability is very much in doubt here. Further, the IRS produces Publication 78, listing all charities for whom a taxpayer can deduct a donation. When you search Publication 78 for Peniel Revival Ministries, you find that tax deductability of donations to Peniel are limited to 50% of the donation. I believe that is because it is in a kind of "probationary status" due to the new application of the charity. Note that some charities are allowed full deductability right away. Because the article still fails to be adequately sourced to establish notability, and my attempt to assist the article has failed due to discrepencies between the text of the article and the records of the reputable website Guidestar, I am urging delete. Scarykitty 22:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment As the article more or less makes clear, the organisation (though probably not the entity of the article title) was founded in India in 1989, and only had a US arm from 1999. The lack of older US tax returns is therefore not so surprising. Most activities still seem to take place in India. If regarded as essentially Indian, the lack of other web-accessible sources appears in a rather different light, given Indian conditions. If kept, the article should probably be renamed without the "Inc". Weak delete, but rename if kept. Johnbod 23:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Thank YOU!!!! Someone actually read the details. Scarykitty, please do not make conclusions without all the knowledge please. Thank You.

As Johnbod states and in response to scarykitty, if you would read the article or take time to review it, you would know that the organization was registered in India first and then moved to the U.S. in 1999-2000 and then received 501c status. So next time, i urge you people to atleast take the time to read the article before you start firing off about deleting it.

Thank You -- 96.224.244.190 16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC) — 96.224.244.190 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment The first three items in the info box are Founder: Abraham Soman. Type: Christian 501c3 Charity organization Founded: 1989. "So next time, I urge editors to take time to make an infobox that is not misleading before you start firing off about what other people should do."

Thank You Scarykitty 02:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete failure of WP:ORG. The IRS information is quite telling, though if they do later meet the basic requirements of notability, we can always have an entry later. TewfikTalk 05:02, 23 July 2007 (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.