Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Dismas Prison Ministry (2nd nomination)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Saint Dismas Prison Ministry}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saint_Dismas_Prison_Ministry_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Saint Dismas Prison Ministry}})

More Jesuit-spam by a COI-afflicted-editor.{{red|Not a single independent non-catholic source}}.Fails WP:NCORP.Our Sunday Visitor is not an independent source.The previous AFD closer seems to have a serious lack of argument-weighing-skills.That would have been a NC, given the rubbish arguments. ∯WBG^converse 16:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. With what objectivity do you determine that "Our Sunday Visitor" is not an independent source. Would you like to rule out all Catholic sources as dependent on this ministry? Our Sunday Visitor is credibly the largest circulation English language Catholic publisher in the world, unless you can produce another candidate for that honor. It appears in most of our churches each Sunday. So what about the sources below that informed others' decision on the article?

:* 1.Lori Hadacek Chaplin (July 3, 2017). "Prison Ministry: From Convict to the Diaconate". Catholic Digest. Retrieved May 12, 2018.

:* 2. "Freedom behind bars". Our Sunday Visitor. Retrieved May 12, 2018.

:* 3. Company. "Deacons see prison ministry as blessing behind bars". Our Sunday Visitor. Retrieved May 19, 2018.

:* 4. "Dismas Ministry: Spreading God's Word in prisons". Angelus News. Retrieved May 19, 2018.

:* 5. Everett, Paul F. (2005). The Prisoner: An Invitation to Hope. New York: Paulist Press. p. 180. ISBN 9780809143016.

:* 6. Amy E. Rewolinski (September 1, 2010). "Dismas Ministry celebrates 10 years". Catholic Herald. Milwaukee. Retrieved May 13, 2018.

:* 7. "Dismas Ministry". Our Sunday Visitor. Retrieved May 19, 2018.

:Jzsj (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 19:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 19:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment There is, at best, no consensus, that Our Sunday Visitor is not a reliable source. See WP:RSN discussion 1, WP:RSN discussion 2 and, more generally, WP:POVSOURCE. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment, i note that the result of the 1st afd was a keep, most of the editors involved in that, and {{u|King of Hearts}}, the closing admin, didn't appear to have issues with the use of (some) catholic sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral, for now - I haven't the time right now to adequately research this, but I find it hard to believe that this ministry has not been discussed in some reliable source not connected to the Catholic Church. If I can find any or someone comes up with something, I'll be on the keep side here. {{U|Jzsj}}, please edit your comments above so they can be read. Also, please, come to grips with the notion that if your only references are to church published sources, you have not shown notability. Organizations, whether for-profit or non-profit are subject to the same requirements, that being that there exist enough sources totally independent of the subject to support all the facts needed to write an article. Pretty obviously, a magazine published by the Catholic Church is not independent of a ministry of the Catholic Church. And circulation is irrelevant. The National Enquirer has a huge circulation, but I doubt anyone would advocate that as a reliable source. No one is saying you cannot use a source like Our Sunday Visitor to source some facts, only that it does nothing to establish notability. You wouldn't want our article on the Corvette to be sourced exclusively to material published by General Motors, would you? How is it different if we are talking about some facet of the Catholic Church? John from Idegon (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

:*The idea that every line in an article has to be supported by an independent source seems to me to not be actual policy in Wikipedia. Usually where there is no reason to question a statement from an organization's website the statement may be referenced to the organization. Is it only a select few articles that this criterion is applied more rigorously to?... Or are all independently published books assumed to be more objective than an organization's website, where misleading statements would expose them to criticism. I understand that an article cannot be referenced "exclusively", as you say, to dependent sources. I find that some agree with me above that there's sufficient independence in the 7 references listed. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that Catholic media are never an independent source for verifying what Catholic organizations are about. Others have seemed to agree with me.

::As I read over my comments above, I am a loss to figure out which can't "be read". Please specify which you find confusing and I will clarify. Jzsj (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

:::There is nothing I find "confusing", which is yet another of many examples of you blaming your incompetence on others; your idiosyncratic method of presenting a numbered list is unreadable on a small format device such as a tablet or a phone. The majority of page views in Wikipedia are made from small format devices, so this is not an insignificant issue. Please do it correctly. It is only to your benefit to do so, as the information you present there cannot be considered if it cannot be read. Also, if you read the above comments, no one has agreed with you, they've simply pointed out that a) one of your sources may be reliable (which is not the question, independence is) and b) that in the previous discussion, some others agreed with you (and that statement was qualified). Note neither of them !voted to keep, and note that I have not !voted to delete. So rather than make ineffectual appeal to emotion arguments that fail to address my arguments in any way (in fact, twisting what I said around to fit your ineffectual argument), why don't you just go find some sources that are unquestionably independent and solve the problem? John from Idegon (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

::::There was one very good totally independent source mentioned in the prior AfD. And that source mentioned another source. Just saying, rather than fighting what seems to me, and to at least two other editors, to be an absolutely ridiculous battle to somehow prove that the Catholic Church is independent of the Catholic Church, how about you do some research and WP:HEYMAN your own article? John from Idegon (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

:::::Thanks for pursuing this. In using the list of references I was following a custom that I've seen used many times before: thanks for clarifying what you meant by "edit" here. I'll keep that in mind. I'm not attributing to you all the bit on independence, but was interested in hearing your comment on it. Also, you are correct in saying that the 2 comments are not in my favor, but I don't understand them as being against some independence, even if not "unquestionably independent". I am prepared to accept what the reviewer of this discussion determines. I'm sorry if I have given you needless trouble or offense. As to WP:HEYMAN, I'll readily admit that I am a novice in policy and disputes, since I had very little conflict with other editors before this year, and now I'm trying to do non-conflictual work, and go through the arduous process of learning more of that policy, though I'm not alone in finding that challenging. I've simply been making my modest contribution to the deletion discussions and remain prepared to accept consensus. Jzsj (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

:*{{tq|No one is saying you cannot use a source like Our Sunday Visitor to source some facts, only that it does nothing to establish notability.}}--Precisely.The bar of sources for verifiability and that for establishing notability are widely different.Your comments have hit the nail on the head. ∯WBG^converse 09:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Kept at AfD less than three months ago. Too soon to be nominating again. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• :Nope. ∯WBG^converse 13:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• ::What's changed then? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• :::The last AFD was a travesty of a discussion. John's detailed analysis, over this AFD, ought to highlight that and that things won't be so smooth, as they were last time.Best, ∯WBG^converse 14:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep -- The scale of this ministry -- 43 states and 116 dioceses clearly indicates that this is notable. And if it is notable, we should have an article on it. The dearth of independent sources (so far found) is NOT a ground for deletion. Furthermore having been recently KEPT, we should not be discussing this again. By all means leave it tagged for improvement, but the fact that it has not been improved is NOT a ground for deletion: WP:V is verifiable, not verified. Additionally, there is no reason to suppose that Catholic journalists working for Catholic newspapers should not tell the truth, at least as much as secular ones do. The nom is asking for too high a standard for sourcing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• So do you have any policy based reason for keep? Verifiability is not being raised as an issue. The sole issue is notability. The applicable notability standard is WP:ORG (which is the same guideline as NCORP). Your !vote as it stands now is nothing but WP:ILIKEIT. So please, provide some sources that are independent of the Catholic Church. Or are you trying to make an argument that somehow the Catholic Church is independent of the Catholic Church. We are not here to be the mouthpiece for any company or organization. If the only material available is from the subject of the article (or its parent organization), the subject isn't notable and the article is promotional. My analogy to "Corvette" and General Motors is spot on. Please provide an explanation as to why General Motors and the Catholic Church should be treated differently under our current guidelines. {{u|Peterkingiron}}, the last AfD was a travisty. It was kept based on a vote count. Not one single keep vote proffered a source, or an argument to policy, but all the delete votes did. It should have been relisted or closed no consensus. I find the notion that the Catholic Church should somehow have a special carveout when it comes to notability to be absurd, and biased. Yet your vote above, citing all sorts of things that have nothing whatsoever to do with notability, and making red herring arguments about people doubting the veracity of the Catholic Church, seems to be calling for that. John from Idegon (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• I judge what I read: I ask myself whether it is credible and notable. I am not a Catholic and try to be objective about that church. If it is not a hoax, it should certainly be kept. We have multiple sources on it. I agree that they are all related to the Catholic Church, but that does not mean that the journalists writing news reports are not independent enough to write objectively about what they observe. You are seeking too high a standard. When it comes to articles on local churches and one-man ministries, I have no compunction about voting to delete as NN. However, if this is on the scale claimed by the article, the organisation is clearly notable. Many articles are not fully verified, but that does not mean their content is a lie. The Prison Ministry of the Catholic Church in what must be a large proportion of USA cannot be anything other than notable; and if it is notable, WP should have an article. That is the basis of my vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• And there was nothing wrong with the previous AFD. Almost all votes were to keep, and mostly from experienced editors, who regularly deal with AFDs (as I do). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Weak keep - this is a fairly well-known (to Catholic and non-catholic defense attorneys, anyway) prison ministry, although I'd like to see more electronic sources added per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment What WP:GNG says about notability is that "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." From this I would conclude that the large-circulation, national newspaper Our Sunday Visitor is an independent source, or all Catholic sources would be excluded from articles about church organizations, and all newspapers should be considered as dependent, catering to the perspective of those who buy the paper. Here is where I suggest some careful judgment and common sense is needed to judge each case for reliability. Jzsj (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

:That is utter nonsense. How is the Catholic Church not affiliated with the Catholic Church? And again, you are confusing notability with verifiability. There is nothing wrong with using an affiliated publication to cite non promotional and non controversial facts. In the world of school articles we do it all the time. We routinely cite state championships to the state athletics sanctioning body, which every school is a dues paying member. However, that does not count towards notability. ORG/NCORP serves as a guideline for interpreting sources to be applied to GNG. And even GNG states clearly that you must have independent sources to show notability. The only way a publication of the Catholic Church shows notability is if the subject is NOT affiliated with the Catholic Church. Have you looked in trade publications for the corrections industry? Because still, there are 0 no non affiliated sources on the article. John from Idegon (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

{{Collapse|2=Off-topic.|bg=#F0F2F5|1=

:*Please give references that work on "Search Wikipedia". WP:GNG works. ORG/NCORP doesn't. Jzsj (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

:::Just prefix it with "WP:". For example WP:Notability, WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:RS.96.127.243.251 (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

::::That's what I did and it said: "You may create the page "Wikipedia:ORG/NCORP", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." I considered checking some of the 1,230 articles listed but I gave up when they seemed mostly opinion pieces, not current policy. Jzsj (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

:::::That's sort of amazing. If you have been creating articles on non-profit organizations for two years, you should be very familiar with these shortcuts to notability standards, and not just discovering them now.96.127.243.251 (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

::::::What are you saying?... where do you find notability standards at Wikipedia:ORG/NCORP? Jzsj (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

:::::::It is plainly listed at the top of the notability page, which has now been linked numerous times. If you read the page, you will see them. WP:ORG and WP:NCORP.96.127.243.251 (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

::::::::I've searched by the full name, not the shortcuts. And so much is said in the various guidelines, which are subservient to policy, that I now see why only consensus can resolve the ambiguities or discrepancies in all the statements taken together. The reviewers, who now seem to me to be very prone to accept articles, were by far the most notceable editors I had to learn from up to January 2018. Jzsj (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::I would not blame your low notability articles on anyone else. I have seen you argue many times that these institutions are lower on the economic scale and deserve special treatment. In Wikipedia that is called an agenda. Everyone would really like you to go by the notability policies that we all agree on, rather than continually call for scapegoats or claim you do not understand.96.127.243.251 (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

::::::::::You're misrepresenting what I've appealed to at times as "common sense": that the availability of articles on organizations in very poor, illiterate areas is less, not that we should raise them to notability simply out of compassion for the people. Jzsj (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::::I'm not the one wasting everyone's time with low notability articles that ultimately get brought to AfD.96.127.243.251 (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

:::::And I didn't link because they already are. That's called WP:OVERLINKING John from Idegon (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

}}

• Comment what was the name of the school article that got Jzsj banned form education topics, for nitpicking over postnomials and wasting huge amounts of everyone's time? I'll bet this prison ministry is not any bigger than your average airport chapel. (NOT a suggestion to create articles on airport chapels.)96.127.243.251 (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete The present article is plain advertising based on the own website (source 1, 2, 3, 5, 10), press releases (source 8, 9), related, printed information supplying (selling??) website (source 6, 7, 14), passing mentions (source 4, 12) and related sources/interview with the founder (source 11, 13). Not a single one that will survive scrutiny against WP:RS. The Banner talk 23:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

::A careful study of WP:RS would find most of these sources useful. If you can be more specific about what part of WP:RS you're looking at, I might then find another part that balances it off. Also, this guideline yields to policy. In the end, even what should be challenged is not the determination of one editor but a matter for consensus. Jzsj (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

:::Another nice attempt to prove that you really do not understand WP:RS. WP:CIR is more and more an issue. The Banner talk 17:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep as this is a major organisation, and regarding the sources - while not ideal there is coverage in a number of Catholic reliable sources that have a good reputation for accuracy and are circulated in the mainstream, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment There are only tenuous arguments to identify this ministry as somehow dependent on Our Sunday Visitor. What would be gained by eliminating this coverage of a widespread, national ministry with very credible coverage in national media. Jzsj (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

:*Funny to see how you change "related" into "dependent", what is something completely different. The Banner talk 09:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

:::Completely different? ... Wouldn't "somehow dependent" be the denial of independent, which is the issue here? Jzsj (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

::::You really do not know the difference between "related to" and "depending on"? The Banner talk 13:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

:::::Please give me the reference to where you find the word "related" given a technical sense in regard to WP:RS; I fail to find the word so used on that page. Also, all Catholics are somehow related to the Catholic church, but there is no church doctrine that prevents Catholic newspapers from reporting the facts about organizations like this. It is to their benefit to do so, lest they lose the respect of honest and knowledgeable Catholics. Jzsj (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

::::::I believe that is precisely the point. Catholic organizations exist to promote Catholic values and to promote and protect other Catholic organizations. Indeed, [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-pennsylvania-report-priest-abuse-20180814-story,amp.html today's huge grand jury report admonished the Catholic Church and its affiliated organizations in Pennsylvania for hiding the sexual abuse of over a thousand children by over 300 different priests]. Over three hundred priests got away with sexual crimes, as they were protected by the Catholic organizations around them. That's the problem in a nutshell: Catholic organizations and publications are not objective sources on information since they have a vested interest in promoting their own agenda and protecting their interests-- just as they did in Pennsylvania.It took independent sources like The Boston Globe to report factually what was happening there.96.127.243.251 (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as not meeting NORG. If this were an article about any other kind of organisation or company for example a bottle manufacturer and we replaced the word Catholic in the title of the sources by "bottle manufacturer" then we would get "Bottle manufacturers digest" and "Bottle manufacturer's Herald" and for the benefit of notability these would be considered as trade publications. The Catholic press has a vested interest in promoting Catholic missions and cannot be considered as totally independent and as per WP:IS "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective". I believe the three sources are RS but not independent and as per WP:N "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Dom from Paris (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

:*I enjoyed your reasoning here. It made things clear as a bell. 96.127.243.251 (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. The subject, on the basis of what's out there, could be doing noble work. But what's out there is not enough, per Wikipedia's standards, to establish notability. Dom from Paris elaborated all that needed to be elaborated, above. Outside material from primary sources and religious missives promoting and blessing the good work of the ministry, we have practically nothing. -The Gnome (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.