User talk:Jzsj/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Your draft article, Draft:John Stochl

Hello, Jzsj. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "John Stochl".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Symbol

Please bear in mind that there are layout guides to help editors allow the the reader to understand an article better. Not only that but templates are made to highlight a theme in an article and link it to others. These templates have symbols and links to articles on the history of the Jesuits. The Society of Jesus is mentioned in the opening paragraph, the infobox, and the category. If you would like further mentions of the Society, please make a template to help the reader find more articles on the Jesuits, and not make it look as if you are advertising or sticking a badge in a corner of your articles. Just putting an uncaptioned symbol at the top of the article, at worst, an editor without positively constructing your actions, may see it as Wikipedia:Ownership. Also, Wikipedia allows logos of organizations to be uploaded, but they can only be used in the organization's own article. Please use the Upload File Wizard to do so. If you need a help with any of these things, please feel free to ask, I'll be more than happy to help. Pjposullivan (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing in "Wikipedia Ownership" against putting a common logo on a group of articles about organizations founded by the same parent organization, it seems to speaks only about reediting. Most of these articles on Jesuit development centres will have no photo to go with them and I see the photo as taking the place of their photo or identity logo, giving the article a better appearance. Is whether one uses a common logo a judgment call or is the rule against it clearly stated somewhere? Also, in your judgment would it be acceptable if the logo was used inside the info box, as giving a pictorial identity to the organization to complement the merely verbal expressions of it? Thanks for your consideration. Jzsj (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I cannot find a rule that clearly says no to putting uncaptioned symbols at the top of articles on organizations with a similar parent company. There are various policies deal with it in less overt ways. Specifically, WP:Logo and section on editorial concerns highlights issues with advertising, placement and use of historical logos. There is also WP:Layout about in what order images in the article should appear. Also, do add captions. About the judgement side of things, as a rule of thumb, I look at Good articles and try to replicate how they look. 'Good articles' have the small green circle symbol in the top right of the article's page. No good article has an uncaptioned logo of a parent organization in it. Hope this helps, happy editing and please do continue highlighting the important work done by those development centres. Pjposullivan (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the considered response. I don't think I've received a "good article" mark in the c. 100 I've created, but with 500 or so centers to cover, and 500 schools to keep working on also, I try to do an adequate job. I'm not clear on whether you would allow the group logo in the infobox, and if so must a caption be attached? The reason I avoided the infobox up to now is that it requires much more space (width-wise) for the logo. Jzsj (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

For my own personal preference, it is about whether the infobox itself allows for two pictures. I know that Template:Infobox church allows it, but I don't know about the organisation infoboxes. If that particular Jesuit development organisation doesn't have a logo, I don't see a problem with the SJ logo in the infobox. Yeah, I see your point, captioning the SJ logo on its own does look weird. Just an idea, what about navboxes, like the Jesuits in Canada one, but just for Jesuit development centres? They don't need captions. Pjposullivan (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pjposullivan and Jzsj:. I mentioned the same issue (Jesuit Logo placement and branding/ownership of pages) in an RFC and in a current COIN post. All responses were against the use of a logo outside of an infobox. In fact, if one reads the WP:LOGO policy, it is clearly stated in the placement section of the policy that logos cannot be used outside of the infobox. to wit: A logo may appear in the infobox of the main article on the subject the logo represents....Outside of these limits, neither non-free nor trademarked logos (see discussion) should be used within an article.. Accordingly, I've reverted all uses of the Jesuit IHS logo on pages created by that were inappropriate. Please do not use it on future subsidiary pages--i.e. Jesuit-backed organizations.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I find the discussion inconclusive on the couple places it has taken place. I see no problem with using the logo within the infobox for organizations that use it anywhere on the website, including for their publications. The warning about branding is not meant to deny any organization its logo within the info box. As I mentioned before, placing it outside the box was in agreement with an editor who acknowledged that there was a good argument for this, as it occupied less space there. But in the future I will place it inside the box of those organizations that have no other logo in Wikipedia Commons.Jzsj (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Detroit Mercy Law Clinics

The article Detroit Mercy Law Clinics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Despite search, I cannot find adequate refs to establish notability. Material would be more appropriately placed on the web site of the university itself as it mostly describes a program rather than why the program is notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Law clinics article

Hello: just a basic question: why should anyone in the world care if such and such program is a required part of coursework for a degree program? The lede needs to be rewritten to be appealing to a more general audience. The entire article should be deleted unless you can come up with some sources that show it is notable to the geenral world. I'm leaving you a note to let you know this, as maybe, just mayb there is a notable article in there somewhere. You'll have to find some sources to prove that... and for Pete's sake, please rewrite the lede to be of interest to those outside of the Mercy Law Program. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Detroit Mercy Law Clinics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Detroit Mercy Law Clinics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detroit Mercy Law Clinics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Human Life Centre, Bhubaneswar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Human Life Centre, Bhubaneswar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Life Centre, Bhubaneswar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The weird reference

I have posted the weird reference in the Jesuit law clinic article to WP:RSN. I am starting to understand that you are making a general statement about Jesuits being fans of education and other good things. That's all well and good, but the slant/tone and POV of the article is problematic in an almost proselytizing way. I'm not saying that you are proselytizing, but I am getting a weird religious vibe from the intro that tells me the POV Is not netural. I do not think it's appropriate to support the opening of the article with a statement about the nobel goals of the religion. It's like saying "business poeple have always been interested in the noble pursuit making money" in the lede of an article on Warren Buffet. Does that make sense to you? The ref provided is so general, and so unrelated to the article subject, that is is coming off as religious promotion, at least in my eyes. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your perspective. I believe that there are many articles in Wikipedia that share a legitimate perspective of a group of people in an objective way, giving their objective or goal and telling the facts about how they achieve this goal. I don't call our goals noble, or use such adjectives to describe them, and none should be inferred. I present the goals and let people decide for themselves whether they are noble: this is true of many articles in the social service and NGO category. If you've really had only a couple months experience in evaluating Wiki articles (as your personal page might lead one to conclude) then please allow for all sorts of things in Wikipedia that you don't find appealing, but others may find very informative and encouraging, like the work of development centers around the world, objectively reported with no overlay of adulatory adjectives.Jzsj (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
Hello, Jzsj. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
• instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.Deb (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that no one belonging to the Catholic church may write articles related to the church? You'd need to eliminate most of the articles on the church in Wikipedia. I hope that we can accept that people within a large organization like the Jesuits (c. 16,000 members) can do a service to Wikipedia by writing objective, non-promotional, factual articles about the organizations's work.Jzsj (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

No. It might be a good idea for you to revisit the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. At present, several of your articles include promotional language. Deb (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I hope to be able to eliminate such language if it indeed exists. My background is math (MS) and science and I try to be completely objective, concise, and simply reporting the facts. If you mention some of what you're referring to I'll be more careful of it in the future. Presently I do try to avoid using adjectives that are at all laudatory in my descriptions.Jzsj (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jesuit Foundation – Prison Ministry

The article Jesuit Foundation – Prison Ministry has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails notability org, no significant coverage by independent reliable sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gab4gab (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Regis College Center for Service Learning (May 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Regis College Center for Service Learning and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Dorothy Day Center for Faith and Justice for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dorothy Day Center for Faith and Justice is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy Day Center for Faith and Justice until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Center for Faith and Public Life for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center for Faith and Public Life is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Faith and Public Life until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Institute of Global Concern for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Institute of Global Concern is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Global Concern until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

citation templates

Hello, Jzsj. Since you are creating numerous articles, I would like to encourage you to use the citation templates (available in the editor) and to provide complete citations. This is a service to readers as it makes it easier for them to know what is cited without having to click on every link. As an example, this citation of yours:

• Journal of ERW and Mine Action, James Madison University. Accessed 20 May 2016.

Would display like:

• Veng, Lao; Kheng, Sisary. "The Development of Victim Assistance in Cambodies". The Journal of ERW and Mine Action. 16 (3).

and the coded content would be

{{cite journal|last1=Veng|first1=Lao|last2=Kheng|first2=Sisary|title=The Development of Victim Assistance in Cambodies|journal=The Journal of ERW and Mine Action|volume=16|issue=3|url=http://www.jmu.edu/cisr/journal/16.3/sr/kheng.shtml}}

However, you don't have to write all this coding, you just fill in the form that is available in the edit area.

I admit I'm a real fanatic on citations, but they do matter, and will matter even more in the future because there are people working on creating an accessible database of citations from Wikipedia. The unformatted ones will not be usable, but the ones that use the citation formatting will be. I try to encourage editors to use the formatting whenever possible. It will eventually make your citation discoverable and usable by others. Thank you, LaMona (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

With your explanation of a new reason for using it, I will revert to this template which I had used earlier on. I departed from it since I like things succinct, but your reason for more lengthy footnotes seems valid.Jzsj (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rohtas Educational and Associated Programs

The article Rohtas Educational and Associated Programs has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:ORG notability requirements.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of African Jesuit AIDS Network

The article African Jesuit AIDS Network has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:ORG notability guideline.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jesuit Social Service Thailand

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jesuit Social Service Thailand requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Brianhe (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Centro Gumilla

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Centro Gumilla requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Brianhe (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Article was a translated stub, offering others the chance to enlarge it. Thanks to someone in Venezuela this has been done and I have added an English explanation of these independent references. I suggest that all large development centres should qualify for inclusion under the rubric of development charities or poverty-related organizations. This is such a centre and does extensive work, as can be gathered from reports in its publications as well as from the independent sources referenced in the article.Jzsj (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rohtas Educational and Associated Programs

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Rohtas Educational and Associated Programs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Brianhe (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Centro Gumilla

The article Centro Gumilla has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced article on non-notable subject. Fails WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Article was a translated stub, offering others the chance to enlarge it. Thanks to someone in Venezuela this has been done and I have added an English explanation of these independent references. I suggest that all large development centres should qualify for inclusion under the rubric of development charities or poverty-related organizations. This is such a centre and does extensive work, as can be gathered from reports in its publications as well as from the independent sources referenced in the article.Jzsj (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Jesuit Foundation – Prison Ministry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesuit Foundation – Prison Ministry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesuit Foundation – Prison Ministry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Ateneo Social Science Research Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ateneo Social Science Research Center is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ateneo Social Science Research Center until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I have added several independent references, such as one might expect in a country with limited newspaper coverage. I believe these references lend credibility to what on its website the Ateneo claims as its very numerous projects.Jzsj (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Centro Gumilla for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Centro Gumilla is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centro Gumilla until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Article was a translated stub, offering others the chance to enlarge it. Thanks to someone in Venezuela this has been done and I have added an English explanation of these independent references. I suggest that all large development centres should qualify for inclusion under the rubric of development charities or poverty-related organizations. This is such a centre and does extensive work, as can be gathered from reports in its publications as well as from the independent sources referenced in the article.Jzsj (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Casa Ricci Social Services

The article Casa Ricci Social Services has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable centre. Referenced provided are largely self-published. One independent ref given is a brief travel guide mention. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing much to support notability. Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Corpus Christi Community for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Corpus Christi Community is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corpus Christi Community until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kripke Center

The article Kripke Center has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:ORG. News and book searches turn up only insignificant mentions.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Center for Community Service and Justice for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center for Community Service and Justice is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Community Service and Justice until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jesuit Migration Academic Network

The article Jesuit Migration Academic Network has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not adequately notable for a page here. Sources are self-published or from related organizations. No preponderance of independent diverse sources to establish WP:ORG!

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Service Yezu Mwiza

The article Service Yezu Mwiza has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Insufficient independently published refs from diverse sources to establish notability. Does not meet WP:ORG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Jesuit Centre for Ecology and Development for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesuit Centre for Ecology and Development is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesuit Centre for Ecology and Development until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Cours de Formation Generale pour Adultes Ruraux for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cours de Formation Generale pour Adultes Ruraux is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cours de Formation Generale pour Adultes Ruraux until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

please see here

Hello,

Please see here, [1] [2] and also at the AFD for Centro Gumilla [3]. I have warned an editor about statements he made about you on both pages. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5