Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pave the Way 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  keep. Unanimous consensus to keep exists. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Pave the Way Foundation

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable organization that does not meet the criteria laid out at Notability (organizations and companies). It has not been the "subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". There are no sources cited in the article and the only external links are to their website and a reprinted press release (you can tell its a press release because it ends with the section "about the pave the way foundation" and a link to the email of their PR person). Savidan 01:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article asserts notability and there are several sources. The claim "initiating the largest Jewish audience in history to meet with a sitting Pope" would demonstrate notability. There are not many references to substantiate this and other claims; inline citations would help and the article has been so tagged. A Google search reveals several news articles about this organization. Although these are not from top-of-the-line sources like the NY Times, they seem to be reliable. I suggest we let the Wiki community of editors enhance this article, especially by adding verifiable secondary sources. Truthanado (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The claim you mention originates on the PTWF website, not a reliable or independent source. I have performed the same google news search. There are reprints of PTWF press releases or otherwise trivial mentions. Savidan 01:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. As the creator of the entry, I found the foundation to be a fairly notable group within Christian-Jewish relations. There are actually very few interfaith organizations such as the PWF that address inter-religious issues in a bilateral perspectives, instead of doing just Jewish concerns about Christianity, such what the anti-Defamation League is mainly interested in. Also, the organization's research on biblical, cultural and historical topics (including Pope Pius XII) probably gives it sone kind of notablility. It has also been recognized as a valuable dialogue partner by Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox authorities. ADM (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ADM, your comment fails to make any reference to independent, reliable sources. Savidan 17:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep I added refs from USA Today & the Jerusalem Post, and there are more in G News archive, mixed in among the press releases.  Needs adjustment for NPOV, though it could be worse--If you really want to see a POV article, check the esWP version. The author should have done some research to find the refs; and so should the nominator. DGG (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * These articles are primarily about Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust. They only trivially mention PTWF. The USA Today article only mentions them because it takes a quote from their spokesperson (this is no different than many other non-notables that are quoted in newspapers). The JTA article reprinted by JPost is a blurb about the documents, not about PTWF. Savidan 18:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see it as showing their work in context, DGG (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. In spite of "It has not been the "subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources"." it took minimal looking to find http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/12057. The Tablet is is a reliable independent source, pre-eminent in its field, in the UK certainly. If an organisation convincing the Pope to host a three-day symposium at Castelgandolfo and speak to it himself isn't an indication of notability, how high do deletionists want to set the bar? Opbeith (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, minimal looking finds http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/tag/pope-pius-xii/ - Reuters religion editor Tom Heneghan's Reuters Blog considers the organisation notable enough to refer to the symposium and link to the website. It is tedious the way people waste everyone's precious time by picking on an article which is useful, has involved contributors in work but is less than perfect in fulfilling Wikipedia's formal rules. Fine, focus the spotlight on the genuinely trivial or self-serving and get them to justify their existence. But why be destructive and deter people from working on Wikipedia? Pedant administrators destroy a lot of enthusiasm and deter potential contributors. Sometimes their efforts result in a lot of useful work being thrown away. There's no hope of making every Wikipedia article perfect, so concentrate on productive scrutiny and if a worthwhile article is defective, help make good the deficiencies, or just send a friendly reminder to originators and major contributors, while respecting the other calls on their time. That's a lot more productive than fostering antagonism, resentment and discouragement. Administrators have a responsibility to understand the world Wikipedia and its contributors exist in. Opbeith (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2009 (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.