Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother of Peace Community


 * 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. The first "retain" opinion does not address our inclusion criteria.  Sandstein  18:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Mother of Peace Community

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 20:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I did a search for this one as it has two good references. unfortunately I did not find additional refs. I removed Google maps being used as a ref in the article. Fails GNG as it does not have adequate RS.96.127.242.226 (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Retain Such a large institution that serves all of Zimbabwe's AIDS orphans deserves to be noted, even though the press is not going to rub peoples' noses in the problems created by relatives who will not take in these orphans, at least until they are old enough to work. Also, I suggest the restoral of the gallery which was just deleted. It nicely complements the article. Jzsj (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sympathy is seldom reason to keep an article when there are no or just a few sources. The Banner talk 12:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * But "common sense" points out that the few sources are all we can expect from such an embarrassing, though outstanding, work. Jzsj (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Life is not always fair. The Banner talk 12:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * But I believe that God will reward those who keep up the struggle for all that is good, and especially of benefit to the poorest of the poor. Jzsj (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously, take the God talk and stuff it into an available orifice in a wall or something. It is entirely inappropriate to come to AfD and talk about how god will reward you. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * They will be rewarded with a place in Heaven but without sources they will not get an article. The Banner talk 13:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's up to you, for the benefit of the 158 or so orphans, not for me. Jzsj (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:NORG
 * Marufu, Ntombizodwa G. THE CHANGING SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS OF THE FAMILY: THE CASE OF CHILDREN’S HOMES IN ZIMBABWE Pages 140-142 Diss. University of Zimbabwe, 2014.
 * (Can't access content, but appears to be non-trivial discussion)
 * (Can't access content, but appears to be non-trivial discussion)
 * (Can't access content, but appears to be non-trivial discussion)
 * (Can't access content, but appears to be non-trivial discussion)


 * — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 14:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC) (editted to number cites 08:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC))
 * WP:RS? Anyone? The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a waste of other editors' time and resources to try and pass off such poor sources as supporting the notability of the article. The second source given above is a dissertation. Not RS. The third mentions the fact that a woman who got murdered who happened to pass by the orphanage the day of her death. Trivial. The fourth source is ISSU.com. Self published, not RS. We do not know what the fourth source says, as it is only snipped view. The seventh source, the postnewsgroup, is not independent as at the end of the article it calls for donations. The Publication also looks sketchy. The last source, the Oxfortimes, is in-depth about a fundraiser for the orphanage, but only a passing mention of orphanage. As The Banner says, these have serious RS problems. At most we are looking at one or two reliable sources, and they are not very high quality. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * With respect to (2), a PHD thesis can be a reliable source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Grace Ntombizodwa Mugabe's thesis has recieved significant coverage in the mainstream meadia, but the coverage tends to indicate this thesis is not considered a reliable source.
 * With respect to (4), the Zimbabwe Independent is a mainstream newspaper. The fact that is is distributed via ISSU.com does not discount it’s credibility.
 * I agree that (7) is not a RS. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 08:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Some more sources:
 * — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 08:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Aha, another two sources of corporate-see-how-good-we-are-to-donate-a-minimal-amount-of-money type. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * These two new sources are news reports about small donations to an unknown school. Like most of the reporting here, it's local trivia. The problem with this article and most of the other small Jesuit school articles at hand is that they have been created out of a belief that Jesuit organizations serving socially and economically under-represented and under-serviced populations are morally well-served by having first-world English Wikipedia articles that may help their status, even if the sources are nonexistent or inadequate. It's God's work, thinly veiled, to put it plainly. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Aha, another two sources of corporate-see-how-good-we-are-to-donate-a-minimal-amount-of-money type. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * These two new sources are news reports about small donations to an unknown school. Like most of the reporting here, it's local trivia. The problem with this article and most of the other small Jesuit school articles at hand is that they have been created out of a belief that Jesuit organizations serving socially and economically under-represented and under-serviced populations are morally well-served by having first-world English Wikipedia articles that may help their status, even if the sources are nonexistent or inadequate. It's God's work, thinly veiled, to put it plainly. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete-Per analysis by IP.No significant hits in newspaper archives, either. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 06:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Common sense" would suggest that the country's newspapers have no reason to showcase that such an effort is needed. And the orphans don't buy newspapers. Jzsj (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete for subject failing WP:GNG. This is one of those occasions where some arguments are so strongly infected by sentiment and emotion that we need to douse the place afterwards with a repellent. -The Gnome (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a nationwide project with the government kicking it off because of the AIDS epidemic. This is not just one project like many others. Jzsj (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not mistake my suggestion here to delete the contested article with my personal sentiments about such projects. But, per WP:SOAP, Wikipedia is explicitly not the means or the place for advocacy or agitation or even sympathy for a cause, no matter how noble the cause may be. Wikipedia may, as a foundation, assist good causes in many ways, but the content itself is shaped according to encyclopaedic policies and guidelines. We keep, or at least I try to keep, separate the encyclopaedia from the activism. -The Gnome (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Would it be too much to expect that Wikipedia's reviewers and deleters start going by the same playbook? For two years and nine months I went by the guideline that a charity with national scope and one reasonably independent source was notable, it seemed like "common sense" and satisfied the reviewers. Now I find my articles subject to a new playbook. Jzsj (talk) 14:40, 16 July 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.