Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franciscan Sisters of Christian Charity

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) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Franciscan Sisters of Christian Charity

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Advertising. Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 22:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not really sure how an article about a religious order of nuns could be considered "advertising" (doubtful a WP article is a viable recuritment strategy), but they pass notabilithy guidelines through their existance as an official Catholic order, mention in various news articles, etc. If you feel the article could be trimmed, have at it, but really don't see a notability issue here. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Trying to "sell" your retreats, healthcare facilities, schools and other work is also advertising/promotion. The Banner talk 01:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then work to cleanup the tone. Clearly this is notable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are books about the congregation, of which the following seem to be the most important:[1][2][3][4]. There are quite a few others that do not look as independent[5]. With a history dating back to 1866 there's going to be a ton of periodical coverage too.Jahaza (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cant see any merit in this nomination at all. Mccapra (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not advertising in the slightest. Religious orders are generally notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- According to? The Banner talk 13:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Common sense. And the fact you've provided no good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Aha, the classic let-us-get-personal-reply. The Banner talk 19:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - How is anything I've said personal? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - And these dozens of news articles. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mostly about their healthcare facilities, schools and jubilees. And effectively not even a hundred hits. The Banner talk 19:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - And just like that, you've affirmed their notablity. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        No, as they do not describe the congregation. The Banner talk 20:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Whether or not you feel those sources provide helpful material to describe the Order is irrelevant. They establish "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I fail to understand your stance on this article, and why deletion seems to be your default rather than working to improve it. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a religious order founded in the 1860s that still exists and runs major institutions is obviously notable, even though the article needs a lot of improvement.IceFishing (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article is not wholly satisfactory in that it deals with mainly with the origins of the order, and then jumps at least 100 years to a brief allusion to the Internet. I agree that religious orders are generally notable. I would make an exception for those that are very small or short-lived, without at this point being sure where I would draw the line. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2020 (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.