Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesuit Institute South Africa

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Institute South Africa[edit]

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

I prodded this article giving the reason "Pure promotion. All the sources are either the society's own website, or press releases and the like, and the article consists of in-universe text about what the society says about itself. E.g., you don't get to say in Wikipedia's voice that the society "trains individuals and groups in critical analysis" without a secondary source confirming that that's what people are trained in by this religious organization. It may well be a fine organization, but there's no indication of notability."

My PROD was removed by an editor who added a third-party source, In Africa's battle against AIDS, a key player hits a crossroads from the Christian Science Monitor. So there is now one source not affiliated with the Institute (even though we are still lacking any not overtly religious source). I don't see that this new source supports notability even a little, though. It's a long, detailed article about the health care work of the Catholic Church in Africa — that's the "key player" referred to, not the Jesuit Institute of South Africa, which is mentioned exactly once, very much in passing. That's extremely shallow coverage, see WP:ORGDEPTH. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like advertising The Banner talk 17:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Society of Jesus, which is what we typically do for associated entities that aren't notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately--I think Bishonen is correct. Shame; I looked to see what I could find cause I'm all for articles on religious organizations, but for this it's not there. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The source does not provide enough coverage to show notability. However I have to object to multiple statements by Bishonen. First off, a source being "overtly religious" does not disqualify its use on Wikipedia. Secondly, the Christian Science Monitor is not an "overtrly religious" source, it is a standard newspaper that publishes for a general readership, the issues of its ownership are not the same as its function and operation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the comments made above by John Pack Lambert about the nomination text. -The Gnome (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suspect that there are offline sources that would establish the notability of this organization, but I’ve been unable to locate them. I deprodded in hope of finding such sources, but but since none are available, I accept that deletion is the appropriate outcome. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 12:51, 12 March 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.