Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Working Boy 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 keep. bd2412 T 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Working Boy Center

[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 12:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it's notable enough. ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A wiode variety of independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Including related sources, deaItalic textd links and fundraisers. The Banner talk 14:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would agree with the "keeps". Jzsj (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Naturally, as author. The Banner talk 22:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The name isn't always translated in the same way, so it's probably better to look for the Spanish name:

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the Spanish name when doing my research! The Banner talk 12:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that these references that were recently removed should be restored:

https://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/noticias/sociedad/6/centro-del-muchacho-trabajador-capacita-a-los-emprendedores-urbanos

https://www.idealist.org/en/nonprofit/5de6aef6eb0e46a5abcac0e45f15d366-centro-del-muchacho-trabajador-volunteers-manhattan

https://www.osf.org/ecuador Jzsj (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You really think that fundraising pages are reliable, independent sources? The Banner talk 23:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ElTelegrafo is a newspaper article and I have no reason to question its reliability.

And where does Wiki exclude the use of references like The Orphaned Starfish Foundation (www.osf.org/ecuador) once the existence of the work is established? It lends repute and importance to an organization, and it's not coming from the organization itself. Jzsj (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conveniently, you skip to remark about "idealist.org", a fundraiser. How many times are you pointed at WP:RS? The Banner talk 08:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be more specific: what in WP:RS bans any citation to a foundation that supports the work. Jzsj (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 2 February 2019 (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.