Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casa Cruzeiro


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Casa Cruzeiro

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ORG. The references in the article are either directories, not independent of the subject, dead links, or don't mention the subject at all. Promotional in tone, this community center lacks significant coverage from reliable sources to establish notability. ℯ xplicit 23:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It is unclear what the alleged complaint is. The complaint has now been expanded to "the references in the article". Is the complainant referring to the page or the references provided in this discussion or on the original page?

If the former:

Ref.1: A commercial entity managing a multi-billion dollar port redevelopment in the centre of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Ref.2: A national newspaper Ref.3: A film commission Ref.4: A church based in Rio Ref.5: The British and Commonwealth Society

I have removed a dead link (thanks!), but the remaining references are neither directories nor lacking independence. Each has an independent board (please prove otherwise if you allege lack of). Furthermore, several are registered charities both here and abroad and so by their very nature HAVE to be independent or risk losing such status.

If the Baptist Convention itself (Ref. 2 in my talk discussion) is not an independent institution and cannot be listed... then it is a sad day for Wikipedia. There is nothing in the Guidelines that states that an organization that has (or even promotes) a belief is de facto not independent. The two can and should be mutually exclusive and any suggestion otherwise (in any form, in these pages or not) runs the risk of religious bigotry.

I still await evidence of a failure to comply with WP:ORG. If the complainant believes the "tone" of the article is "promotional", then please provide evidence and the page will be amended accordingly in accordance with the Guidelines.

Many thanks.

--Luke simone (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This isn't a "complaint" and no one is passing judgement on what the organization does. It's simply not notable enough for an encyclopedic article. Ifnord (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:NORG and significant RS coverage not found. This content belongs on the org's website, not here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.