Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centro Gumilla


 * 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) Daniel kenneth (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Centro Gumilla

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article on non-notable organization. Has two independent refs that are minor mentions. Third ref is from related organization. Overall non-notable, as there are not enough refs to establish wide independent significant coverage. WP:BEFORE turns up little; work by three editors so far fails to turn up genuine notability. This is an important organization, but not in terms of Wikipedia's notability requirements. Information like this belongs on a separate web site hosted by the org itself, or the Jesuit faith. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Article was a translated stub, offering others the chance to enlarge it. Thanks to someone in Venezuela this has been done and I have added an English explanation of these independent references, while adding others (please note). I suggest that all large development centres should qualify for inclusion under the rubric of development charities or poverty-related organizations. This is such a centre and does extensive work, as can be gathered from reports in its publications as well as from the independent sources referenced in the article.Jzsj (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Jzsj, You have said you have a master's degree from somewhere. I'm hoping that I can infer from that that you have the mental ability to understand the following, which you have been told numerous times. There are no special rules for "development charities or poverty-related organizations". The general rules are WP:ORG and WP:GNG. You continue to argue that there should be special rules for your pages. It does not work that way. You say you are impartial, but your editing is blatantly promotional, and you call repeatedly for special rules for your "development charities or poverty-related organizations". Your pages are bing deleted and merged with other pages because, once again, there are no special rules for "development charities or poverty-related organizations", no matter how many times you ask. It does not matter that you are a priest or a retired priest or even God. No special rules. Please stick to the actual rules: notability and good sources.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The above statement by HappyValleyEditor is a personal attack against a specific editor, and also quite offensive in nature. "You have said you have a master's degree from somewhere. I'm hoping that I can infer from that that you have the mental ability to understand the following," Remember during an AFD it is best to discuss the article, not comment on the editors.  Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  23:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: As we all know, you do not appreciate my deletionist agenda nor my aggressive approach to COI editors. In any case, the above advice is very reasonable given that the editor in question cpersistently ignores the basics of WP:GNG and WP:RS, despite my having told him about this multiple (i.e. five to ten) times, and there having been a dicsusion at COIN about it. Despite this, the editor persists in asking for special rules for religious and poverty organizations. When an editor consistently ignores the foudnational rules, it is time to ask them if there is something going on in the comprehension area that might be causing them to continue to edit outside of the established policies. My statement above is simply another request that he follow the basic rules of WP:GNG and WP:RS. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Justicia social en Venezuela: la preocupación social de la Compañía de Jesús, Centro Gumilla , Political Communication and Leadership: Mimetisation, Hugo Chavez and the construction , Firmado convenio de investigación entre Fundacredesa y Centro Gumilla , Interview with international media. , Popular Voices in Latin American Catholicism, Embassy in Bolivia carries Gumilla report. , Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, Prensa'' on violence in the schools. , BOB award. , ProDaVinci report on contemporary journalism, El Espectador , PROVEA. , Public library catalogue. , Centro Gumilla realizó taller de desarrollo personal para Warao en Tucupita, Local Church, Global Church , Important contributions on cooperatives in Venezuela. 
 * Strong Keep This article subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as books, journals, newspapers and articles, and thereby passes WP:GNG. Some of the sources are as follows:

With all these reliable sources such as newspapers, journals, books, articles and magazines, and the significant coverage within their pages the subject has well crossed the threshold oh notability WP:N and passes WP:GNG. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 00:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced. I know that earlier you had added the Yellow pages as a reference, so I checked the ones you provided above. The first link provided is published by a Cathoolic university. Of course they say good things about a Catholic organization. The second link is 404. The third link is two very brief partial sentences in a book. Some are good finds, but let's see: #10 provided above is a Wiki page. A Wiki page is a bad source, becasue anyone can publish there. #11 is actually a publication of the Centro Gumilla, so that would qualify as a self-published ref, wouldn't you say? #13 is an announcement for a photo contest. #14 is not actually a reference, but rather a library catalog listing. All in all, you've come up with a few decent refs and many very sketchy refs. I'd encourage more attention to WP:RS, and in turn notability. The bottom line here is that when you take away the Jesuit-published sources, most of these articles disintegrate. It's good work, but not notable in the wikipedia sense, and it should be published elsewhere. Wikipedia is just being used as apromotional vehicle to promote these entities.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I stand by my diffs from the article and my statement above, "With all these reliable sources such as newspapers, journals, books, articles and magazines, and the significant coverage within their pages the subject has well crossed the threshold of notability WP:N and passes WP:GNG." Discounting sources that you did not even take the time to read is certainly not convincing and surely a quite poor argument.  Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  01:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I was just ponting out that you have a habit of providing a slew of sources, many of which are weak, poor or inappropriate, like the addition of the Yellow Pages listing as a reference. Also I was pointing out that it would be good to take more care in actually reading your sources. I did read most of your sources carefully, which is how I found that you were presenting the Yellow pages, a library catalogue listing, a wiki, a self-published item and a 404 page, among others, as good references. Sorry, that's just the facts! Happy editing!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, source #15 that you give above is publised by Fe Y Alegria, a Jesuit organization. Look at the domain name. I really encourage you to read your sources carefully, to avoid providing bad ones as you have above and in the article.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is certainly nothing wrong with citing sources published by a Jesuit organization or a site connected with some aspect of the Catholic Church. They are reputable organizations and can be used to confer notability. Perhaps you should read over WP:RS and not be so quick to dismiss good sources because you might or might not have a bias to their organizations. Do you have a bias toward Jesuit organizations or the Catholic church? I notice that you are attempting to delete many articles about Jesuit and Catholic related organizations. Just asking for clarity. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  02:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Madam, I'm not the one who added the Yellow pages listing as a reference! I'm simply pointing out your addition of bad references. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a really cute response, but oh yeah you avoided the question. I guess that answers it. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  06:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I suggest that all large development centres should qualify for inclusion under a rubric like development charities, poverty-related organizations, social science institutes, and the like. This is such a centre and does extensive work, as can be gathered from reports in its publications as well as from the independent sources newly referenced in the article.Jzsj (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Cleanup. The article contains promotional text: "The Centre also holds workshops to help young Venezuelans to break out of a cycle of passivity and to realize their dreams through discovering their fuller potential" Lrieber (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What particularly else is there to suggest this is actually independently notable though? SwisterTwister   talk  05:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I believe I may have to go with Delete here unless better coverage can then be found as there's still questionability for independent notability. Delete instead and Draft perhaps as about 10-15 pages of Google Books has only shown the best link so far to be this, it's still questionable at best. This would need familiar attention but I beleive this would be restarted anew. Notifying for his analysis with this subject.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Uncertain: move to draft space awaiting better references.  I think it is quite possible that the organisation is in fact notable, but we do not have the references to show it at this point. I would expect there must be additional ones from new sources in Venezuela?  DGG ( talk ) 13:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - A well documented article and notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – The specific points made have been tended to and improvements made. There are several quite independent and powerful references supplied. I see no point in adding to the article more press notices on its articles, as its publications are immense and the article attempts only to summarize its works. What's on its website backed up by the refes given should be more than sufficient to establish its notability.Jzsj (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: please note the double keep votes by Jzsj. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:50, 12 June 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.