Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesuit Social Research Institute


 * 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 merge to Loyola University New Orleans. Apparently the sources are not adequate to justify an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Jesuit Social Research Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to fail WP:GNG, promo. Small institute belonging to the Loyola University New Orleans. The Banner talk 10:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a large enough institute to deserve an article separate from the University; it would be awkward on the Loyola University New Orleans page to have such a long diversion from the university article. Also, this institute receives outside support as a joint work with the Jesuit Province of which Loyola is a part. And the impact of its efforts is evidenced in Time magazine, Washington Post, New Orleans Advocate, The Times Picayune, and Seattle Journal for Social Justice, as well as the national Catholic News Service and Philanthropy News Digest. (please add). A search will also find its work included on broadcast news websites. Also, please add this independent reference to the Kellogg Foundation. Jzsj (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Jzsj, a source is only independent if it has no connection to the subject, and write freely and objectively of the subject. The Kellog foundation gave the article subject a grant. Do you understand how that is not independent? The gift of money connects their interests very clearly and makes them non-independent. Can you see this?96.127.243.251 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Three mentions that they have issued a report, nothing substantial about the organisation. The Banner talk 13:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Frankly, this is more Jesuit spam, sourced entirely by Jesuit and Catholic organizations reporting about other Jesuits & Catholics. As someone wisely said at another AFD, what is the difference between something like the Catholic Reporter and the Plastic Bottle Rpeorter? They are both trade magazines. In the absence of independent RS, this is promotion that fails GNG and NORG.96.127.243.251 (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep See this, this, and this. I'm thinking this passes WP:CLUB. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 19:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The last two sources you mention are passing mentions. for WP:CLUB: "The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." There's no CLUB, NORG or GNG notability here, unless you can come up with something resembling in-depth sourcing in multiple reliable sources.96.127.243.251 (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge Daask (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC) It's reports and experts are widely discussed in mainstream media like the Wall Street Journal, Center for American Progress, U.S. News and World Report, and Fortune magazine. Daask (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But this is an article about the organization, not about its reports. The Banner talk 18:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * These links are very deceptive, as they are only passing mentions or at most a few sentences. There is no in-depth coverage in them.96.127.243.251 (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , have you read the sources? Or, have you just dropped every GHit into the AfD? &#x222F; WBG converse 11:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the articles I mentioned and thought I was clear that they discussed the center's reports and experts rather than the center itself. When there are sources with good depth of coverage, but we are unsure if they are adequately independent, I think the incidental treatment of the subject in mainstream sources is a useful indicator for notability. Those articles all seem to regard the center as respected and authoritative.
 * However, I appear to have misunderstood the issue based on the above discussion of the reliability of the Catholic News Service. I'm not seeing any source with significant depth of coverage, from Catholic News Service or anywhere, so I'm changing my vote. Daask (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete or Merge Fails Notability. None of these sources - or the ones listed in the article, except those published by the Institute itself - are about the Institute as such. They're about other topics and mention the Jesuit Social Research Institute in a sentence or two. There's plenty of room to merge into Loyola University New Orleans when you remove all the parts that aren't about the University, and aren't written about by independent sources. For example: the director testified; the director published an article; a fellow presented a paper; all that isn't about the university. Every university has professors that publish articles and present papers, that's what professors do, for most professorial positions it's a job requirement. It would be more unusual to have universities that don't publish articles and present papers. --GRuban (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to Loyola University New Orleans per Gruban. &#x222F; WBG</b> converse 11:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge, which is wat we usuaually do with university institutes of this sort. Very few are appropriate for separate articles.  DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 28 August 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.