Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Dismas Prison Ministry

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Dismas Prison Ministry

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

Fails WP:GNG. Advertising. The Banner talk 05:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I did improve and tag for "tone" and "advert" and hoping to attract additional editors to work on the article. Also added more categories. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After more cleanup, I removed the "tone" and "advert" tags. Article still can use additional content. — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can also do something about the lack of notability, the many related sources and unsuitable sources. As far as I can see not a single non-Catholic source is mentioned. The Banner talk 20:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one [1]? – Lionel^(talk) 07:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article about the woman and what she did. Beside one (1) passing mention nothing about the organisation itself. The Banner talk 08:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:JoeHebda-thank you-RFD (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nomination for creation at WikiProject Catholicism: I should add that I have no personal interest in this organization, but feel I am doing Wikipedia a service by creating articles on organizations that editors more experienced than myself think to be notable. It also seems to me to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I suppose if it had caused a scandal it would receive coverage by the secular media, but that wouldn't in any way enhance its reach and relevance which are already nationwide. Jzsj (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Keep -- The scope of this Catholic prison chaplaincy charity without question makes it notable. It is possible that the article needs improvement, but that is a problem with many articles. It implies tagging it for improvement, not applying TNT. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It also needs notability and proper independent sources... The Banner talk 19:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could use more discussion on notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, » Z0 | talk 08:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no mainstream reliable sources available for this topic. The only sources I can find come from Catholic newsletters. There is a similar organization called Dismas House that may be notable (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jean-dewinter/a-re-entry-program-that-works_b_7019256.html), but they don't appear to be connected. Brad v 21:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has sufficient sources although more would be good. Catholicism is not a fringe topic so catholic sources such as Catholic Herald seem ok, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 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.