Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hope Line

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|The Hope Line}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=The Hope Line}})

Unsourced for 9 years and apparently non-notable. My own searching finds some passing mentions and directory listings, but nothing that meets WP:SIRS. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 18:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 18:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

:Update: we already have Francisco Garmendia, this could be merged into that, with a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I added a number of citations. I found it's legal name which produced a number of solid sources. The Hope Line sounds like a good organization, to be honest. I believe it is notable. --Wil540 art (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

:Many of those are sources I found when I did my search and dismissed as not meeting WP:SIRS. The NY Times article is pretty good (even if it's more about James P. Broderick than about The Hope Line), but that's the best of the bunch. One of the refs is just a link to a photo??? The BronxNet ref is a classic passing reference; it just mentions The Hope Line in a list of agencies. I don't have access to Disaster Psychiatry so can't say anything about that. The Bishop Garmendia reference is a page on the founder's own website, so not independent. The Bronx Free Press story is questionable. As far as I can tell, this is a blog post, so probably not a WP:RS. The nonprofitlight.com ref is a directory listing ("Data for this page was sourced from XML published by IRS (public 990 form dataset"). And catholiccharitiesny.org is the parent organization, so again not independent. With a couple more sources like the NY Times article, I'd be happy keeping this. As it is, it's pretty marginal. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

::You make good points. I added a couple more sources. --Wil540 art (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

:::Just to clarify, my comment about the sources not meeting SIRS does not apply to the NY Times source. That's one that I didn't find myself, and I do thank you for locating it. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources in the article or in searches. Coverage that is significant is either not reliable or not independent and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Garmendia was formally recognized and honored by the United States Congress in 1997 for his work with The Hope Line. I added the congressional record to the article's sources. That and The New York Times piece indicates some substantial RS.4meter4 (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• :I think you're exaggerating the significance of this. The appropriate section of the Congressional Record for that day is [https://www.congress.gov/105/crec/1997/06/03/CREC-1997-06-03-pt1-PgE1075-3.pdf]. Garmendia's congressman read the tribute on the floor. There was no vote or anything formal like that; just a routine reading of something into the record by a member. Probably to a chamber that was empty except for the clerks. These things are routine and are done as a service and a courtesy to constituents. That same day, a volunteer arts organization was recognized for their 45th anniversary, a junior high school social studies teacher was recognized for having won a fellowship, a member read into the record their monthly newsletter on foreign affairs, and the 50th anniversary of George C. Marshall's commencement address at Harvard was noted. In any case, this is WP:PRIMARY, and makes only a passing reference to the subject of this article. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

:::{{u|RoySmith}} Thanks for clarifying this through a better contextual lens. I found it through my university library in a segmented portion and I didn't realize that this kind of thing was not unusual. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2021 (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.