Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesuit Migrant Service, Mexico


 * 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. Per rough consensus that there are sufficient sources (if only narrowly) to satisfy GNG. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Jesuit Migrant Service, Mexico

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG, promo. Largely based on its own website and related sources. The Banner talk 21:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. At least two substantial 3rd party sources, no. 5 and 8. And 4, if it is not too closely related. Two such aources are sufficient, and any inappropriate tone can be fixed.  DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , Ref 5 is the sole significant piece announcing the resumption of activities of the organisation.Ref 4 just mentions that a member of JMS took part in a discussion on migrant/refugee issues.Ref 8 is a research-paper on migrant-issues centered around a migration-programme of JMS by a non-notable university professor and published in a journal of questionable credibility.Which one of them devotes significant coverage about the subject? I appreciate your endeavor to save Jzsj's articles but.......... &#x222F; WBG converse 09:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to save them all. But then, I'm not trying to delete them all either. Some have been clearly notable, and quickly kept in other AfDs. Some are clearly not notable , and will be deleted. Most are borderline, and could be seen either way.  DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you are not trying to save them all.You only try to wrongfoot editors and admins alike with what seems to be a promise to edit the article. But in fact, after the spammy article is kept, we never see you there again. At least, that is my experience with you... The Banner talk 08:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Ow, and those sources are not in-depth descriptions of the organisation. More passing mentions. I know you are confused with the notion "exists = notable".


 * Keep, in agreement with the previous "keep" remarks. Jzsj (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as per DGG's analysis that the sources are sufficient for WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. James500 (talk) 07:34, 2 September 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.