Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exodus 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 keep. John254 04:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus Ministries

Non-notable church, only source is to the church itself. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted, this should redirect to Exodus International, since some sources I'm looking at call Exodus International by this name (Exodus Ministries). But in searching I am finding sources about this Exodus Ministries from the Dallas Morning News, Boston Globe and Charlotte Observer.[1] I haven't assessed if they're enough to meet WP:N/WP:ORG/common sense standard of what kind of sources is needed for an article, but it's a start. --Rividian (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I, too, will be looking for sources for this. Please don't close early if I haven't !voted. Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's basically two claims to notability here: First, the Harriet Miers appointment controversy generated a lot of national press back in 2005. I've linked Washington Post and Christian Science Monitor, but there's also CNN and USA today coverage if anyone wants to add it. I didn't, because it really doesn't deal with Exodus Ministries as anything more than "Not Exodus International." Second, there's local charitable notability, which I got from the local bar association supporting it, and coverage in the Dallas Morning News. Overall, I'd say these two together meet the GNG, but not by much. Jclemens (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per sources in the article now... it's not hefty coverage, but it might be enough. --Rividian (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- Contrary to nom, this is NOT a church, but a rehabiliation work. I would suggest that it is cannot be kept, it should be merged with Dallas (where it operates). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.