Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Studies Centre for Social Action

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. Consensus is that the sources found by User:Indy beetle were insufficiently in-depth and/or not independent. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Studies Centre for Social Action

[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)

Four incidental sources in article. Lack of SIGCOV means it fails GNG. WP:BEFORE ("Studies Centre for Social Action" + Congo) found nothing. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seeing as this is about a Congolese institution, the WP:BEFORE should have included more research of the French name or its French acronym, CEPAS. Doing this has unearthed the following:

What appears to be an in-depth article in a journal/magazine about the centre's founding: [1].
An article from Radio Okapi about a three day event organised by CEPAS: [2]
An article from a Central African Jesuit website about CEPAS: [3]
Post from the Jesuit European Social Centre on CEPAS' mining reform activities: [4]

-Indy beetle (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did my WP:Before and still judge it to be non-notable. There are two good sources above, although the second one is not as in-depth as the first. Numbers three and four are Jesuit sources that cannot be considered as independent: Jesuits writing about other Jesuit centres is trade promotion. Notability is still marginal even with these.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. And it is not so strange that Jesuit institutions write about a Jesuit institute. Unfortunately, that makes the sources related and so unsuitable. The snippets from the book are too short to make clear if this is the same institution as the one in the article. Besides that, the book is published in 1965, the same year CEPAS was founded. The announcement on the radio is clearly (as the article states) based on info by the organisation itself. The Banner talk 11:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 15:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per Banner.I tried to access the snippet-one through my subscriptions but none seem to have it.∯WBG^converse 07:33, 10 September 2018 (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.