Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People United Center

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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People United Center[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 18:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added find sources AFD template for Spanish name. Bakazaka (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Look to adding this recent notice by a legal foundation in support of Pueblos Unidos Center's efforts, as also this report of the Center's legal actions, by an independent source, and this notice from Europa Press. Jzsj (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "recent notice by a legal foundation" is actually just an event announcement, not an endorsement of any kind. it's publicity for an event.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read on and you'll see the credit that is given (in their bold letters: "This guide is the result of the Foundation's network work with the Pueblos Unidos Center of the San Juan del Castillo Foundation and Pro Bono lawyers,..."). Jzsj (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS, as it is very clear that you do not understand what a reliable source is in this context. An event listing that talks about a publication being launched is not a reliable source. The source in question is reliable support for a claim that the event happened, and that the Jesuits have published a certain book. It lends no notability to the organization itself. While the source includes "Pueblos Unidos Center of the San Juan del Castillo Foundation and Pro Bono lawyers" in a few sentences, it does nothing to establish that the org is notable, as it goes into no depth at all about the org. It is an event listing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:RS do you find comes closest to supporting what you say here? Are you speaking of reliability or notability, since WP:RS never uses you word "depth" and is not a discussion of "notability"? Jzsj (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. (from Wikipedia:Notability). See also Wikipedia:Verifiability for the demands for proper sourcing. And from WP:RS: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The Banner talk 11:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look again at the excerpt and see that others will disagree on whether it fails the criteria you mention here. The mention hardly seems trivial and the source seems reliable. Jzsj (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are you really unable to understand the meaning of these policies? The Banner talk 15:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Drmies:. Are Banner and I wrong about this?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can tell. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-No reliable independent source that discusses the topic significantly.Mere name-mentions aren't sufficient.∯WBG^converse 11:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search does not find enough material in independent reliable sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. Bakazaka (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2018 (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.