Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Business Network

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Business Network[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)

The only two sources I found were: https://catholicnews.sg/2009/11/15/one-year-old-catholic-business-network-a-work-in-progress/ https://www.heraldmalaysia.com/news/singapore-catholic-business-people-bearing-witnesses-to-christ-even-at-work/45911/1

~~First, I have doubts on whether they are independent sources because they are local catholic newspapers, not general news outlets. Greater likelihood of the posts being promotional.~~

~~Overall, I do not think these pass the bar to keep this article: it is a pretty run-of-the-mill organization. Kate the mochii (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)~~> striking statement by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Religion. Kate the mochii (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Per Kate the mochii's doubts regarding independence, I wanted to make an important distinction on Catholic (and all sectarian) media. Catholic and Catholic-interest news agencies like Union of Catholic Asian News (UCA News) are generally considered independent sources from other Catholic media groups and in coverage of Catholic material because they are not directly affiliated with a central incorporation nor share joint ownership. However, in situations such as CatholicTV where the entity is owned by a particular diocese (in CatholicTV's case, the Archdiocese of Boston) and shares its ownership with another news agency (in CatholicTV's case, the The Pilot), the news agency would not be considered independent when referenced for topics pertaining to the diocese that owns it or the other assets possessed by the diocese. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as I think a socker nom discredits the process. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I could not find any sources as well, unless they happen to have a second name. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Per rationale from Pbritti User:Let'srun 14:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In light of Pbritti's explanation, I think the sources are adequate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, based on the explanation above. I suppose believing a certain set of religious rules (and making a company that plays by the rules) and being run by one of the particular churches are different things.Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2023 (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.