- 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. Consensus that GNG has been satisfied, despite promo issues (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Miguel Pro Human Rights Center ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 13:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 13:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 13:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Strong keep There is significant, second party witness to the centrality of this center's work in defending the press and the lives of those advocating for civil rights in Mexico. I see no good reason for eliminating from Wikipedia information about this center. Jzsj ( talk) 14:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up – there are plenty of sources available, especially when searching for the Spanish-language initialism PRODH. Brad v🍁 16:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep . Plenty of independent coverage from reputable sources. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: on the one hand, I don't agree that it fails WP:GNG but on the other hand the article is a promotional mess. However, it's not G11-worthy so best to keep and improve. I'll start by cutting out the most promotional stuff I can find. SITH (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Consensus that GNG has been satisfied, despite promo issues (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Miguel Pro Human Rights Center ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 13:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 13:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 13:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Strong keep There is significant, second party witness to the centrality of this center's work in defending the press and the lives of those advocating for civil rights in Mexico. I see no good reason for eliminating from Wikipedia information about this center. Jzsj ( talk) 14:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up – there are plenty of sources available, especially when searching for the Spanish-language initialism PRODH. Brad v🍁 16:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep . Plenty of independent coverage from reputable sources. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: on the one hand, I don't agree that it fails WP:GNG but on the other hand the article is a promotional mess. However, it's not G11-worthy so best to keep and improve. I'll start by cutting out the most promotional stuff I can find. SITH (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- 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.