Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dolores Mission, Los Angeles


 * 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. Strong consensus after the addition of Jzsj's sources that notability is established (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Dolores Mission, Los Angeles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unclear notability, as most sources are about the church and the projects of the parish but not about the parish itself. Looks like promo. The Banner talk 00:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep (Changed to Keep after seeing many better sources.) How did an article with almost no independent sources get published? I see the approving editor was SwisterTwister. I just did a search and it appears that there are many news sources, post-Obama, that deal with the mission and its immigration services. So, likely notable but needs massive TNT and removal of internal sourcing.96.127.243.251 (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * TNT? Do you not mean TLC? In the mean time I am sitting on the fence, pleasantly surprised by events and close to changing my mind. The Banner talk 09:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The overall language of the article is still not encyclopedic. It's very promotional. All those subsections belong in a grant report, not a wiki.96.127.243.251 (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Some sources that should be added:
 * LA Times, Monday September 8, 2003, p. 38.
 * LA Times, Monday October 12, 1992, pp. 383, 386.
 * LA Times, Saturday August 3, 2002, p. 107.
 * Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester New York, Sunday November 1, 1992, p. 2D.
 * Chicago Tribune, Sunday March 21, 1993, p. 77.
 * LA Times, Sunday February 19, 1995, p. 379.
 * Michael White for Associated Press, carried in Wisconsin State Journal, July 28, 1992.
 * Boston Globe, October 2, 2005, p. A24.
 * Jzsj (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I have a newspapers.com account and verified Jzsj's sources. There are enough in-depth articles that I think this organization satisfies WP:NORG. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I just added three good sources; perhaps one of you could add the above links, with an eye to removing the non-independent proyectopastoral.org sources?96.127.243.251 (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * here also is the LATimes archive of articles, which has too many to mention (40 or so?) over eight pages. No doubt they re mostly passing mentions, but it is clear that the Mission is well-known and notable in at least a basic way, given the frequent media coverage. Here is one excellent in-depth article from the LA Times. 96.127.243.251 (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I am not going to oppose an emerging consensus, but this looks like an article on a single local church and its outreach programme. Such things are generally NN.  The fact that something has had newspaper coverage does not mean it is necessarily notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at the LA Times archive. It has been written about extensively in reliable sources.96.127.243.251 (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as the Los Angeles Times so passes WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:40, 19 August 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.