Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lay Association for Development

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. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lay Association for Development

[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, promo The Banner talk 11:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic discussion of date development work by young people began in Africa / WP:IDHT

Comment. The following was just removed as an "entirely bogus claim", but the reason given misread the statement: "Volunteers range from ages 21 to 40 and it has been called the first association to send young volunteers to help with development projects in Africa." For "associations" and "development projects" this may well be true. Referenced to: Rovisco, Maria (2016-05-13). Cosmopolitanism in Practice. Routledge. ISBN 9781317159070. Archived from the original on 2017-11-28. Jzsj (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim was that the article subject was "first association to send young volunteers to help with development projects in Africa". It's a ridiculous claim. Missionaries of Africa started working in Africa in 1868. Here is a [of dozens of missionary groups who have worked in Africa over the past several centuries]. A BYU article says that in 1852 "three Mormon missionaries took their first steps onto the vast continent of Africa after a seven-month journey spanning 9,713 miles with neither purse nor scrip." Ever heard of Colonization of Africa? To quote the article, "In popular parlance, discussions of colonialism in Africa usually focus on the European conquests that resulted in the scramble for Africa after the Berlin Conference in the 19th century". There have been centuries of missionary work, conquest, religious proselytizing, colonization and development in Africa, by young, middle-aged and old. The Dutch began colonizing South Africa 310 years ago. Do you not think that a) they did some development work int those 310 years on the country and b) some of it might have been done by young people, over that 310 year span? Saying this tiny organization was the first to do something similar in 1986 is not accurate, even if you found one source that says so. If you can find three sources, maybe. One is an anomaly. Part of employing reliable sources in Wikipedia articles means being critical about what the source says, and not just plopping them into the article if the name of the article subject is in the source.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is no more off topic than if someone were to remove all the refs from an article during a deletion discussion. Just below you will find my defense of the source, which requires immediate attention, not consignment to a talk page. Jzsj (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article content disputes belong on the talk page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restore ref: It is important that references to books, such as this, not be eliminated while the deletion discussion is in progress. The following ref that was just removed needs to be considered for restoration to the article now. "Volunteers range from ages 21 to 40 and it has been called the first association to send young volunteers to help with development projects in Africa." Note the importance of all four words "young volunteers ... development.. Africa".Jzsj (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And what is the value of that passing mention? The Banner talk 16:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some may credit the fact that Lay Association for Development is mentioned in a book edited by scholars from Germany and Portugal. Jzsj (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just one sentence? Do you really not understand the guidelines for sourcing? The Banner talk 16:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know well the policy, and if you would kindly be specific in your references to policy, and not assume that all is said on your side, then I would be grateful to you. Jzsj (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jzsj, this discussion belongs on the talk page, not the deletion page. If you insist on continuing your disruptive editing on this issue, please keep it within this collapsed area above so that the deletion discussion can continue based on notability issues.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to close this off-topic discussion: Canada World Youth has sent young people to do development work in Africa in continuously since 1972. The source that i removed (claiming 1986 as first youth development in Africa), and which Jzsj is contesting, was obviously inaccurate. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of unrelated issue collapsed into box above. Please stick to notability issues in AfD discussion, not article content disputes.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ,ajr internation organization, with a good number of sources. Most of them are clearly not related to thesubject, and are sufficiently substantial. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, along with the addition of this recent coverage by CNA and this and this from Ecclesia news. Jzsj (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, here we go again: the announcement of a training, an article not mentioning the organisation and an announcement of a new mission. None of them discusses the organisation in-depth. The Banner talk 21:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please omit the second reference, I got it confused with the third. But you might help by adding the other two simply to update the article. Jzsj (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I add "sources" that are irrelevant? The Banner talk 22:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion is welcome, as a participant has been blocked.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 12:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Searching for this organisation under its Portuguese title I found a number of sources with substantial coverage which appeared to be independent, including this, this, this and this while it's English title produced hardly anything. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Cwmhiraeth. There does seem to be adequate coverage when you search for the Portuguese name of this association. James500 (talk) 16:54, 6 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.