Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center of Concern


 * 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 keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Center of Concern

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not only are there no independent reliable sources about the article, but apparently the organization's own website can't be relied upon. Accordingly, there is an utter lack of published sources, so the article should be deleted for failing WP:GNG.

As a secondary matter, a person holding himself out as the president of the organization has also requested deletion of the article. However, my request is based on whether the organization qualifies under Wikipedia policies and not from the related party's request. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I am the author of the original article and I see no cause for deleting it for lack of prominence: there are whole lists and categories of social and development institutions of less prominence than this. I've done my best to get an update on the article and to use all resources on the web to substantiate it. They have abandoned their old website as too expensive and are working on a new one, but I believe there's enough outside information to corroborate the reliability of the report here. Where doubts arise, please use the "citation needed" route, but please don't overuse it. The claims made are not really that far-fetched, given what I've referenced on the organization.Jzsj (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The University of Notre Dame Archives has an enormous volume of materials related to the Center. They might assist in finding older materials to establish notability. See http://archives.nd.edu/findaids/ead/xml/coc.xml My own thought is that this subject is very likely notable. It's an established NGO with some big names attached to its history. While that doesn't confer notability itself, it would be very strange for an NGO of the period to have always stayed just under the radar. I more suspect the problem is false positives when searching the name. I don't think we should follow through with the requested deletion rather than fix the article. If there's so much problem with what's here right now, let's userify or draftify until more research can be done to address the individual's concerns. I think the big worry was that the article had suggested there was an ongoing affiliation with the Society of Jesus or the Catholic Church. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Here's some sources:

And that's just a few, from just two of the linked resources above. I'll be glad to run through more databases later. In addition to these article-type sources, there are numerous instances of citations to works published by this NGO—giving an indication of its notability as a publisher of "think tank" type works. While that doesn't quite fit within the usual WP:CORP/WP:GNG-type analysis, I think it should definitely be considered in the same way that WP:PROF considers that sort of impact. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Here are some more sources:

Unfortunately, I lack access to a number of databases that probably have more information. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep No way a 45-year old NGO, which worked on |IMF reform, is not notable. The article just need work.-- danntm T C 23:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I know nothing of it, but it looks significant to me, not a mere one-man band. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2016 (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.