Talk:Saint Dismas Prison Ministry

Improve instead of delete

Greetings, Today I tagged this article for "tone" and "advert" because I think it can be salvaged instead of deleted. Another consideration is it is included in Milwaukee Archdiocese navbox. Lastly, it needs more wikilinks to further integration in the encyclopedia. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's discuss your deletions here

@The Banner: Please let's discuss this. These are not all primary sources and include at least one independent correspondent. As to the COI that must be established, not assumed.Jzsj (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj, I reverted your edits. Banner's version was fair and not promotional, whereas yours it not. You need to recognize your COI for Jesuit issues. You are back not even two days from a one-month block, and reverting the good edits of others. Are you trying to get yourself another block?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not about primary sources, it is about changing the article into a promotion piece. The Banner talk 22:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Please, respect the policy WP:PROMOTION. The Banner talk 22:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's begin by retaining the independent sources, then we can decide what is worth preserving from them. Just because the current president of an organization is a Jesuit doesn't mean it's a Jesuit organization, or that I have a conflict of interest in trying to improve this article on a Catholic organization. (The block had nothing to do with my editing, but I made a mistake in alerting to an article an administrator who had shown an interest in it.) Jzsj (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

No, let us start with a neutral, promotion-free article. The Banner talk 22:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

A staff member and a correspondent for these Diocesan newspapers wrote articles which give valuable information about this national ministry. Why must you delete these sources from the article? The Saint Dismas Prison Ministry is not owned or controlled by those who are writing about it here: the Catholic Church is not like one big business, and Catholics don't have to agree on the merits of this ministry. These two sources meet Wikipedia standards as well as the unattributed Angelus ref that you have chosen to retain. Jzsj (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

And the answer is again simple: WP:PROMOTION. Not every blurp about an organisation is relevant. The Banner talk 23:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

But why must you take it upon yourself to remove these independent coverages, rather than letting others decide if there's anything in them that IS relevant?Jzsj (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Because it does not work that way, you should now this by now... The Banner talk 08:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I think special:permalink/862230886 is about as long as this article can get using reliable sources. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Mention that it sponsors a national conference has been repeatedly removed. Is there any support for retaining this in the article, referenced to here (with other notices from around the country also available). Jzsj (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Why should we add plain promo? The Banner talk 14:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Why would mention of this major work of the organization be promo; would this be true of other organizations?Jzsj (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The Catholic Harold's website states that it is owned by the diocese of Madison. Catholic sources are not necessarily unreliable, but I I don't think this newspaper has sufficient editorial independence to be cited in this article. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 15:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

How about the other diocesan papers that mention the conference?Jzsj (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Why do you not check the relevance first? The Banner talk 18:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I consider a statement like "we sponsor this" always as promo, no matter what organisation makes this claim. It rarely adds anything to the notability of the organisation. The Banner talk 16:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge this page into both Religion in United States prisons and Catholic Church in the United States. Klbrain (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

---

This article is not going to get any longer. I feel that the content should be merged with Religion in United States prisons. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Your additions of RS to the article was great. You are correct, it's at it's limit.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support Better add it to an article with a wider scope but the same playing field. The Banner talk 08:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose That article is not about organizations on the outside that support prison ministry. It is about what is going on inside the prisons. I suggest that the present article could be a bit longer if less scepticism was shown toward reports of its activities. Jzsj (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  If merge, better merge with both Religion in United States prisons and Catholic Church in the United States. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  That sounds reasonable too. The Banner talk 13:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support-Choice per Chicby.∯WBG^converse 19:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose As of 19 May 2018, discussion result was to Keep so I don't see a need to merge this content into another article. While doing assessments on thousands of articles, I see some articles that are "short" or "small" and find nothing wrong with that for the WP encyclopedia. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The latest afd was not keep-- it was no concensus.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've implemented the merge by a merge to Religion in United States prisons followed by a section transclusion to Catholic Church in the United States. Klbrain (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Just a general comment about this since it doesn't seem that any consideration was given to the non-free use of File:SaintDismas.png in the main infobox of this article prior to it being merged. The file's non-free justification rested entirely on the fact that the logo was being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of this article (i.e. a stand-alone aritcle about the ministry); so, when the content of this article was merged into the two other articles mentioned above, the nature of the non-free use changed this making the previous justification for non-free use no longer valid. While it might be fairly easy to move text content from one article to another as part of a merge, the same can't be automatically assumed for non-free files which are also being moved. Non-free content use requires a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use and those which are missing rationales can be removed per WP:NFCCE; moreover, the post-merge rationale needs to be a valid one that meets all ten WP:NFCCP.
  Anyway to make a long story short, the file was flagged for review by a bot and was scheduled to be removed when I came across it. It turns out that the file is actually too simple per c:COM:TOO United States to be considered copyrightable and didn't really need to be uploaded as non-free; so, I coverted the file's licensing from non-free to {{PD-logo}}, which means it's use is no longer subject to WP:NFCC and can be pretty much used on any page now. Just for reference though, it's unlikely the way the file is being used in the two new articles would be considered justifiable per NFCC, which means it would've ended up deleted if it been too complex to be converted to public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)