Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infocap

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. The first Keep argument appears based on outdated community consensus since reversed and I am disregarding it. The 2nd however, looks solid and w/o any rebuttal is compelling. That said this is not the strongest consensus so my close is w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination provided there is a direct response in the nominating statement to Billhpike's comment and sources. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infocap

[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)

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 08:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Automatic notability as a school. Find also recent, independent news sources as here and here. Jzsj (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- First, schools are not always notable about some people want you to believe otherwise. Second, the two "sources" you give are useless. The first is about an award ceremony with some company promo. The second is an announcement that course start enrolling. The Banner talk 17:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure why you're applying such exclusive criteria to schools that are prominent only for helping the poor, not for supporting their local newspapers. Please note that according to the criteria at WP:QS, these sources are not "useless" (emphasis added): Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. I suggest that the sources you mention do not fail this test for usefulness. Jzsj (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and February 2017 RFC The Banner talk 20:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily pass passes WP:GNG with coverage in academic sources. See Google scholar search results and these articles

Luis, Roblera Arriagada (October 2003). "20 años de historia: Infocap; la universidad del trabajador" [20 years of history: Infocap; the university of the worker]. Mensaje (in Spanish). 52 (523). Santiago: 34-37.
Turri, Tomas Andres Ilabaca (2015). "Trabajador colectivo o Trabajador emprendedor. : Tensiones en el proceso de formación en Infocap" [Collective worker or entrepreneur worker? Tensions in the training process in Infocap]. Revista de Estudios Cotidianos (in Spanish). 3 (1): 172–206. ISSN 0719-1936.
Marina, Hernández Pinto (2002). Instituto de capacitación y formación laboral: la universidad de los pobres [Institute of training and labor training: the university of the poor] (Thesis) (in Spanish). Andrés Bello National University.

— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 12:11, 25 June 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.