Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesuit Foundation – 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 delete. This is a close call, but the strongest arguments that talk about notability show that there are not enough sources that are completely independent of the organisation. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Foundation – Prison Ministry[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. References are either self-published, published by Jesuit sources related to article subject, or extremely minor mentions. This kind of non-notable but important material should be hosted off-wiki by the organization. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ While I do not doubt that this program exists, or that it does good work, I cannot find reliable , secondary sources (such as non-Jesuit newspaper articles) describing it in ways that show that it is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC) Withdrawing my opposition now that sources have been brought to this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've found no independent significant coverage. Fund raising appeals published by associated organizations read like press releases from Jesuit Foundation - Prison Ministry. Gab4gab (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To disqualify all organizations that raise funds for an NGO seems unfair to me. These are independent organizations which chose this work as worth reporting on (in Asian-wide Catholics News service) or for investment of funds. Also, please credit the reference by the Thai embassy.Jzsj (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To help us base our decisions on Wikipedia policy and guidance I'll point to some guidance in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) that lists what does not support notability. The exception list includes the following and more:

press releases, press kits, or similar works;
self-published materials;
any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it;
advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization;
corporate websites or other websites written, published, or controlled by the organization;
any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly;
other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.

The sources I've found with a depth of coverage beyond trivial fit one or more of the exceptions I've listed. The UCAN article in particular is almost entirely what the organization is saying about itself. Either by quoting a member or repeating items from the organizations report. Also, while the article is published by UCAN the stated source is SJAPC, a Jesuit organization. Gab4gab (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article subject has received significant coverage at numerous reliable sources WP:RS and therefore passes WP:GNG. Some of the sources cited include, here [1], here [2], and here [3]. The subject has certainly passed the threshold of notability WP:N so the article should be retained at wikipedia. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 01:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The references you selected make a good case for non-notability. #1 is make a trivial mention of the organization being one of three that provide support at a immigration detention center. #2 is a fund raising appeal/press kit material produced by the organization. #3 is the UCAN article I discussed above. Articles that reprint material produced by the organization or simply make trivial mention do very little to pass a threshold of notability. Gab4gab (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, the sources you provide are all inappropriate in that they are weak or self-published. #2 and #3 are published by related religious organizations, and #1 says literally only "Jesuit Prison Ministry" in a longer list of organizations, which makes it a classic minor mention. Gab4gab's excellent list explaining sources above is informative here. I am all for keeping articles when the sourcing is diverse, separate from the institution and detailed. However this is not the case here. 01:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We certainly do not agree on the excellent sources in the article. I stand by my statement and quoting of the sources, and the fact that the article shows notability and passes WP:GNG. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 01:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant< I would usuggest again that you read WP:RS more carefully, as the sources you gave above are all plainly inappropiate or weak. I'm just repeating myself at this point, but I do hope you read the policy on reliable sources as I think it would help.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again we do not agree. Just because you may see something differently from another person does not mean the other person is wrong. I can say the same thing to you. You need to study WP:RS, because that may help you to understand the policies better. Working collaboratively with other editors means to listen to the viewpoints of other editors, and take their words under consideration. Saying that the other person is wrong every time because you simply disagree with their viewpoint is a poor argument that many administrators will see right through when evaluating AFD discussions. Good day! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 01:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is simply a fact that the references you provided above are weak because of the reasons stated. Anyone can see this by reading the policy. It would be great if you read the policy, that is all I am suggesting. It believe it would improve the quality of the references you propose, for example, the ones above, if you understood better what a good reference is. It's nothing personal. I'll leave you now as it is tiring to repeat this over and over.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It shows important work affecting prisoners from several countries, and several independent references are given.Jzsj (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The importance of the work being done hasn't been questioned. The issue is notability. What's missing is in independent in depth coverage that doesn't use what the organization itself has written as it's source. Gab4gab (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - What this case may prove is that the newspapers in Thailand don't survive by reporting on the underside of their society. We have such papers in the North but it cannot be assumed of the South. When the Jesuit Mission UK writes about a mission, one can assume that it checked the accuracy of the report before adopting that mission. When the organization's annual report contains a gallery of photos showing the work it is doing, then unless we have some reason to think they are deceiving us, we can take these photos as objective evidence of their work. Also, when Catholic News Asia shows a picture of this ministry visiting families in Laos, we have a strong secondary source. When the Australian Council of Churches reports on the state-run Flinders University adopting Jesuit Foundation Thailand prison ministry, it lends notability to this organization's work. Also, Bangkok Post is an independent source that confirms JFPM Thailand's involvement in the specific works it claims to be doing. And the Thai government mentions JFPM first among organizations involved in the "victim identification process" and in its progress report. Unless we have reason to question the veracity of an organization, I see no problem with giving credence to very credible stories on its website, backed up by second and third party references showing that is exists and is about what it says it is about.Jzsj (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have reworked the article and references and added new references. I suggest that this is a notable social work in Thailand, and notable also for its efforts with prisoners' families outside Thailand's borders, with pictures and very credible reports to establish this.Jzsj (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this user has already !voted, above. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing is adequate to meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since I'm currently uncertain, I'm asking DGG for his subject analysis. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the references, Refs 1, 5, and 11 are the organization's own pages; Refs 2, 6, 7, 8, and 10 are from the web pages of the parent organization or affiliated organizations ; Refs 3 , 4 , and 9 are just mentions. Thisis apparently an article about a very small (7 person) organization that is doing important and highly meritorious work, and perhaps ought to be notable, but does not yet have the source coverage to show it. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm convinced by DGG's analysis, there's nothing at all for any solid independent notability and nothing minimally convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. How much coverage of the underside of society, work among prisoners, do we get in the North? This work in Thailand and the surrounding countries has sufficient coverage to show it is a primary source of prisoner protection and assistance in the area.Jzsj (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2016 (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.