Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesuit Communications Foundation


 * 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) AnsrieJames9 (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Jesuit Communications Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG The Banner  talk 07:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete we do not even have a seperate article of the Philippine Province of the Society of Jesus.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: I found some reliable sources which talk about JesCom, JMM and their activities:, , , , , , , and . That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG.  ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The second source does not even mention the organisation, two mentions of the same movie by the same department (headquarters and a local office), related sources and passing mentions. Sorry, I am not convinced. The Banner  talk 08:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , it did mention Jesuit Music Minstry (as I indicated), which has its own section in the article. So, that would still count no matter what. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 13:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this discussion is about "Jesuit Communications Foundation", not about "Jesuit Music Minstry". Something that is just a passing mention, by the way. The Banner  talk 15:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented by Astig. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented above. JesCom is an independent institution registered under the Philippine SEC --{ PMGOMEZ }  11:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete First off, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP and not vanilla GNG. The reliability of a source is only one small element of the requirements for sources to establish notability - the others are WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. ORGIND requires "Independent Content" in order to count towards establishing notability, references must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That last bit is important. Looking at the sources put forward by Astig above:
 * Inquirer reference is about a "musical tribute" to be given by this organization and another. The article contains a standard description (found on the website and even in this article) and interview/quotation from Fr. Nono Alfonso, a senior exec with the topic organization. No Independent Content. Fails ORGIND.
 * GMA News reference doesn't even mention the organization, fails CORPDEPTH
 * Another Inquirer reference also relies entirely on information provided by people connected with the topic organizations and is written by an individual from the topic organization, PRIMARY source, no Independent Content, also fails ORGIND
 * Jesuit Conference of East Asia reference is a blog. Fails as a reliable source. Even leaving that aside, it was written by a person with the topic organization, therefore PRIMARY and also fails ORGIND.
 * Dept of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines reference is about the launch of the movie Ignacio de Loyola produced by the topic organization. There is no information about the topic organization though, fails CORPDEPTH
 * Vatican News reference is a mere mention-in-passing, fails CORPDEPTH. And that's leaving aside the fact that the Vatican News is hardly an independent publisher.
 * CRUX reference relies entirely on information provided by an executive, Rev Emmanuel Alfonso, no Independent Content, fails ORGIND
 * Embassy of the Philippines, Madrid Spain reference is all about the movie, mention in passing of the topic company as producers, fails CORPDEPTH
 * Adobo Magazine] reference is also about the same movie with quotes from the head of the topic organization, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
 * Not a single reference comes close to meeting the requirements for establishing notability as per NCORP nor would they even meet the less-strict interpretations of GNG. Topic fails NCORP.  HighKing++ 16:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bold third relist to give the opportunity to rebut HighKing if desired, whose contributions I find (currently) the most persuasive.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have long been of the opinion that an article does not meet WP:HEY until all the suggested citations are added to the article. Ping me if you can fix this issue. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.