Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesuit Centre for Ecology and Development

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 drafify. There is clear consensus here that the available sources do not justify a stand-alone article. And, while there's more arguments for an outright delete then for any of the WP:ATD possibilities, I think we're shy of a real delete consensus. Given that it's already been discussed for almost a month, another relist doesn't seem like the right plan.

So, I'm going to move this to draft. If anybody feels they want to merge information from the draft into Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lilongwe, no objection to that. Also, if somebody feels strongly that the draft has no hope of progressing, there's also no objection to bringing the draft back to AfD (or, whatever XfD is the right place for drafts) for another look. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Centre for Ecology and Development

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization. Another in the dozens of Jesuit centres strteam of articles that are largely based on thin notability and a web of interrelated self-published sources. This one has very poor sourcing. This organization does good work, but Wikipedia is not the place to advertise and promote religious ventures that do not meet the notability rules. Belongs on a its own site.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added some independent sources but in a largely illiterate, small country like Malawi one cannot expect many reports, though the references given seem to show the notability of this work for the development of this country.Jzsj (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jbh ^Talk 14:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's only 3 years old, not enough time to accumulate enough for its own solid article and there are no other convincing and suggestive signs this can be kept simply because of its affiliations. Notifying DGG for subject analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to drat space awaiting sources. They are simply not sufficient at present. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lilongwe, because the latter article presently has no mention of the topic, and the Archdiocese is affiliated with the Jesuit Centre for Ecology and Development. This will improve the merge target article, as per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. zero gnews hits. one gbooks hit. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Delete entirely is better as preserving it serves nothing convincingly better if there's nothing actually convincing of any anytime soon notability. It suffices with it being mentioned there with the amount needed. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.