Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesuitenmission

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 no consensus. Vanamonde (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuitenmission

[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, promo The Banner talk 09:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all sources are German, difficult to establish notability. I suppose if it passed on de.wikipedia.org, I would feel better about an English language counter part but it doesn't appear to be there yet. - Scarpy (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What policy requires English language sources for notability — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 06:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the sources in both English and German before I nominated... The Banner talk 09:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not required to be in English to establish notability. See WP:GNG, where it states, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000, that you are supposedly replying to Banner (going by your indention-level), when did Banner state that only English sources are required? ∯WBG^converse 18:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This appears to be the "Home base" of certain Jesuit missions in other countries. It may well be difficult to find independent sources, but that is not uncommon with organisations: it is a matter of how good their press officers are at getting stories about them into newspapers, which is not a good test of inherent notability. Banner seems intent on persecuting Jesuits. I am not a Catholic, but that does not mean that I do not think that Catholic mission organisations can be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So, due to lack of policy based arguments, you come with personal attacks? The Banner talk 18:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Peterkingiron, Banner is nominating shitty, poorly sourced articles that are not the quality we expect on Wikipedia. It's clear he has nothing against Jesuits (he actually offered to help JZsj many times), and your personal attack is not AGF. Your insult is very lame behaviour, and the argument you provided is just WP:ILIKEIT and has no basis in policy. Also the idea that on Wikipedia we must respect the religious views of editors is ENTIRELY WRONG. Personal religious views are of zero consequence on wiki. Given that, it's really not possible to persecute anyone here. 96.127.244.27 (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article suffers from too much primary sourcing, which is the root of the problem: the org is not notable enough to generate the secondary sourcing required for notability.96.127.244.27 (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a significant organisation so there should be German sources offline if not online, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic306, Can you kindly abstain from appending regards to the end of whatever sentence you write? Also read WP:MUSTBESOURCES. ∯WBG^converse 11:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparent importance is enough to justify a keep, on the assumptonthat a proper search for German sources will find them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Keep. And add the recent notices of their activities here and here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs) 17:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So you did clearly not understand the meaning of "significant coverage" although you said only yesterday that you did understand it and would take in on board. The Banner talk 18:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And why not send the same judgment of yours to the three previous "keep"s, with which I was following in support. Jzsj (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not do this, why not do that. Everything to brush aside that fact that you said to understand and adhere to the notability guidelines and policies, only to ignore them hardly a day later... The Banner talk 18:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notability policy; there are notability guidelines; the nature of guidelines is that the are a guide to what we usually do, not a fixed rule we must always follow. The actual policy which is at the base of the guidelines is NOT INDISCRIMINATE, and nobody here is proposing to keep all religious missions and social service agencies regardless. The reason we have AfD is because there is a need for article-by-article consideration by the community about how to interpret both the policy, and its dependent guidelines. The community as a whole make the rules here in general discussions, and the interested portion of the community in any given case determines how they apply to individual cases. Arguing that we must follow rules is appropriate in a formal organization operating in a top-down manner, which is the exact opposite of the fundamental basis for the existence--and the success-- of Wikipedia DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WBG asked me to take a look at what sourcing I can find but the problem is that many sources use this name and Jesuit missions interchangeably and I lack the time to do a more in-depth search. The organization is probably notable enough but at the very least, a merge to Society of Jesus#Social and development institutions might be considered. Regards So Why 19:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Society of Jesus#Social and development institutions per SoWhy, merging any independently-sourced content (of which, as far as I can see, there is at the moment none). It's been suggested that there must be sources and it's just a matter of finding them, and that may be right; but until and unless someone does that and produces those sources, this page cannot meet the notability requirements of WP:NCORP.

Since this organisation is in Nürnberg, I searched for "JesuitenMission, Nürnberg"; I got 5 hits on GNews, of which one (the Süddeutsche Zeitung) which I can't access might have some actual coverage; and 13 hits on GBooks, of which the first eight appear to be passing mentions (several of them relating to a Paraguayan book on Domenico Zipoli), and the last five or so false positives. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per JLN and SoWhy.∯WBG^converse 16:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Majority consensus is to keep, but recent votes favor Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict6 9 21:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect also per SoWhy. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep? Redirect? Delete? Consensus is not evident here. Final re-list...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 23:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, recreating the page iff significant coverage is found. Since article history is preserved by a redirect, this should not be an obstacle to those that would want to improve the the article. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' per DGG and WP:NEXIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Redirect, Userify or send to AfC I see we are nearly all struggling with German sourcing and the obvious problem that many of the sources clearly are not quality WP:RS, but left with the question if there might be two that are. This is not the first AfD I did not want to vote on because of the struggle of translating the entirely foreign sourcing--when most does NOT appear to be secondary. I spent forever working on the AfD on a bus line in India (Latur Transport), where all the sourcing was in a multitude of Indian languages. There seems to be an increasing burden on us at AfD to deal with these translation issues. If an editor wants to use entirely foreign sourcing for notability like this, I think it would be reasonable for us to put more of the burden on the editor/creator of the article to prove to us the sourcing is good. This is, after all, an English encyclopedia primarily edited by English language editors. At the same time, I completely acknowledge that an article in Der Spiegel or Le Monde is just as good as an article in NYT for establishing WP:GNG. I'm curious what others think about this issue and foreign sources and how we might deal with it. Maybe we need an overall discussion about this challenge somewhere. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:33, 19 September 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.