Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesuit Hakimani Centre


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  06:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Jesuit Hakimani Centre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG, seems to be part of the Hekima University College. No independent notability. The Banner talk 09:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WeAreAll Here  talk  09:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya -related deletion discussions. WeAre</b><b style="color:blue">All</b> Here  <sub style="color:blue">talk  09:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Mixed, leaning delete - The sources are almost all either: Primary (off their own site), primary/inherently biased (JEA, Secretariate), mention (Barometer). Against that isn't an enormous amount: KTN, lots of Daily Nation pieces, but they seem to have issues regarding reliability; some citing for their work in several books/articles (e.g. Climate Change and food security; Shared Waters, Shared Opportunities). However this seems fairly minimal. If someone better up on measuring reliability could answer regarding Daily Nation, given how many pieces they have (though some of these are also mentions).


 * Their actions are also supposed to be "It is involved in research, training, consultancy, advocacy, social action, and the print and broadcast media" and there seems to be distinct dearth of sources to back up each aspect of these. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment It is operated by the Jesuit province, not the university which merely hosts it. –Zfish118⋉talk 16:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not sure your cleansing edit is particularly good form given the breadth of it and its presence in AfD - more likely for commentators to go find citations for uncited content then generate content afresh. I've not reverted since I wouldn't say I have suitable technical grounds to do so, and doing so just to lock it down to aid my viewpoint on preserving articles would be poor. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think it would survive AfD in it prior form; there was far to much Original Research regarding the activities (phrases like 'its activities may be inferred from its website', etc). As a reasonably sourced stub focused on the history of the organization, it stands a chance.  However, I do not feel it is worth my effort to carefully edit an article that may be deleted anyways. –Zfish118⋉talk 18:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 04:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC) Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">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.