Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interfaith Center of New York


 * 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)  TheSpecialUser TSU 04:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Interfaith Center of New York

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks like an advertisement to me and lacks notability and sources. In my opinion, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 00:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per WP:BEFORE, or if you wish, WP:HEY. Plenty of good sources are in the article: two New York Times articles and one Daily News article directly discuss the Center.  Many additional sources could be found easily and added. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE does not take away the advertisement smell... The Banner talk 21:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it certainly doesn't, but WP:BEFORE suggests that, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD" and most people would, I imagine, consider bringing an article into line with WP:NPOV or WP:MOS to be part of that "normal editing". That's not to say you are required to do that editing - WP:BEFORE actually suggests tagging the article to encourage others to fix it. Stalwart 111  22:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 04:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per WP:PROBLEM. I don't see any notability issue, and I'm not going to champion this (because I'm sick and tired of AfD debates) but there's no real reason this should be deleted. Any issues it has can be easily overcome. Coppaar  ( talk ) 04:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - poor quality prose is not a criteria for deletion. In my opinion, the subject passes WP:ORGDEPTH. Stalwart 111  05:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - It does have crappy prose, but that has never, short of WP:TNT, been a reason for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2012 (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.