Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal Freedom Outreach (2nd nomination)

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. Shii (tock) 18:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Freedom Outreach

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Article is sourced mainly to its own websites, with only the briefest mentions in a couple other related sources. BayShrimp (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The PFO publishes the Quarterly Journal which is an important conservative evangelical Christian journal with a board of reference that includes several well known conservative theologians. The Quarterly Journal has been continuously published for over 3 decades. I plan to use some of the Quarterly Journal articles as source material for improving Wikipedia articles on New Religious Movements. As a result, the article should not be deleted. Note - My only connection to PFO is that I am a subscriber to the Quarterly Journal and have done some minor typos edits to this article in the past. Taxee (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google searches do show that it exists and publishes its journal and also some books. I don't see any real coverage about it. Another organization cited in the article as being related does not list it in its list of links to other organizations: http://emnr.org/links/. It does not have to have an article in WP for its publications to be used as sources in other articles.Borock (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Patently senseless nomination. They enjoy the support of prominent evangelical theologians and have received high credit in scholarly literature, as well as by other esatblished counter-cultists. --Jonund (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pronounce) @ 20:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (soliloquize) @ 20:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of secondary sources. Notability is not inherited from being associated with notable people or other groups.Skylark777 (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There is clearly sufficient third party coverage. Even if this depends on the subject's press releases, the fact that the Christian press has chosen to report them implies that they consider the subject worth reporting. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete PFO is irrelevant unimportant group, not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. This group is less worthy of an article than my band I had in high school. I bet my band had far more followers than these clowns. If not for its own webpages one wouldn't even know this "group" existed. It is mainly used as a website to offer up critical commentary on other subjects (such as Bill Gothard or Benny Hinn), when really PFO is not a reliable or reputable source about anything. It's just a self-published blog by a bunch of unimportant people with obvious biases. When people got tired of PFO's critiques being removed from other articles on Wikipedia, someone got the wise idea of making an article about PFO, as if having an article about this "group" somehow makes them relevant. They are not relevant. There are no reliable or reputable sources of information that mention PFO and certainly none that evaluate PFO with a critical eye, or even a non-critical eye. This article should be removed. Vivaldi (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google news search uncovers minimal RS employing PFO as a source in skeptical appraisals of apparent evangelical fabulists. Pax 07:46, 8 January 2015 (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.