Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White House Jesuit Retreat Center

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. czar 01:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White House Jesuit Retreat Center[edit]

White House Jesuit Retreat Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability guidelines. Advertising. The Banner talk 00:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:NPLACE, and WP:NOT. Article creator is topic banned from a segment not related to this article, but I'm really wondering whether has the competency to be editing here at all. I agree with banner that this is just promo. And with nothing resembling either N or V, this subject, which is of little interest to anyone but Catholic clergy, is quite indicative of that. John from Idegon (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a valuable addition to the pedia. Interesting read. And I'm certainly no priest--oh to the contrary. Independent RS here [1] and [2]. And John, your personal attacks against JZSJ are getting a little tired, don't you think?– Lionel(talk) 02:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "valuable" - vague and undefined. "interesting" - irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 03:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly...two feature section articles in a local paper do not notability make. And from the tone of the St. Louis Today stories (one on an event and one on a staff change), it appears this is some sort of addiction recovery center...something not mentioned at all in the article creator's publicity piece masquerading as an encyclopedia article. John from Idegon (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some evidence IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF is provided about encyclopedic notability and/or suitability. --Calton | Talk 03:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, cool, sourcing has somehow become WORSE. A thirteen-year-old TRAVEL ARTICLE from the New York Times? This would barely be acceptable in an article about a tourist destination. --Calton | Talk 02:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The Jesuits are known for their retreat houses, as their founder St. Ignatius of Loyola was the founder of the modern retreat movement in the Catholic church in the 16th century and is its patron. This is one of the oldest and busiest Jesuit retreat centers in the United States, having its rooms (now 85) filled throughout most of its 95-year history. For many retreats a single Catholic parish has filled all 85 rooms, and midweek retreats have been employed to accommodate more people. I've just added independent references from the New York Times and St. Louis Post Dispatch. Jzsj (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not only are the sources poor, but this is an advert that could be nominated for speedy deletion as spam. 2601:188:180:11F0:ED79:9881:B9EF:CD44 (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I tried to find sources and couldn't. Can't establish notability (and I tried!) Barbara ✐  ✉ 00:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm afraid this fails two of our basic pillars, WP:neutrality and WP:verifiability. While I'm quite sure it was not written with any intention to advertise, it comes across as unacceptably promotional in tone, partly because of the liberal use of "insider" terminology ("Our Lady" and the like); it's also virtually all unsourced. I find it surprising that no better sources have been found for an institution almost a century old. A search of newspapers.com gets 39 hits; looking quickly through them, I don't see anything that is more than a passing mention or a routine announcement (it received money, someone was on the board, it held a retreat for emergency service personnel and so on); perhaps someone else will find more, but at the moment it does not seem that it is WP:notable – there just isn't the in-depth coverage that would provide material for an article about it. Note: the page is shorter than it was, as I have removed a good deal of content copied more or less directly from its website. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. As noted, coverage is minimal and more along the "exists" line of things. Nothing to shows any sense of real notability, and this is quite promotional. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:04, 14 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/White_House_Jesuit_Retreat_Center&oldid=1070649000"