Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Progreso & ERIC-SJ


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Radio Progreso & ERIC-SJ

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Both organisations fail WP:GNG, largely based on unsuitable, related sources The Banner  talk 11:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The frantic efforts of the author to add every blurb remotely related to the subject is turning the article into spam The Banner  talk 20:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep. A notable organization. The sources are reliable and about all that one can expect in the second poorest country in Latin America.Jzsj (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * We need to relate our principles to the context. Honduras hasnt a wide variety of sources and our coverage is poor. Rathfelder (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Six of the sources are the own website of the radio station and at least one is a Jesuit-related source (the Jesuits run this organisation) The Banner  talk 13:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Check all the sources. And a couple I just added are clearly independent. Jzsj (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, what you added about the murdered journalist and a party are indeed irrelevant. The Banner  talk 14:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: The sources in the article as it stands now demonstrate that it does pass GNG (in particular, these two and this one). But beyond that, I think WP:NEXIST applies here, as Rathfelder alluded to above: Eric/Radio Progreso plays an important role in Honduran civil society and has been around for decades; just because we can't find a lot of sources online right now doesn't mean it's not notable. For example, I don't know exactly how to fit this into the article, but here's a story the AP ran back in 2013 about a national survey Eric conducted. -- irn (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as there is likelihood of offline sources given the claims of significance, it is referred to in reliable sources which is also indicative of offline coverage in a very poor country with lesser Internet coverage which has caused systemic bias Atlantic306 (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2019 (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.