Deletion of Saint Dismas Prison Ministry (2nd nomination)

Comment: this is a fairly well-known (to Catholic and non-catholic defense attorneys, anyway) prison ministry, although I'd like to see more electronic sources added per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: as not meeting NORG. If this were an article about any other kind of organisation or company for example a bottle manufacturer and we replaced the word Catholic in the title of the sources by "bottle manufacturer" then we would get "Bottle manufacturers digest" and "Bottle manufacturer's Herald"  and for the benefit of notability these would be considered as trade publications. The Catholic press has a vested interest in promoting Catholic missions and cannot be considered as totally independent and as per  "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective". I believe the three sources are RS but not independent and as per  "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are '''independent''' of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:IS||WP:N)

Comment: The present article is plain advertising based on the own website (source 1, 2, 3, 5, 10), press releases (source 8, 9), related, printed information supplying (selling??) website (source 6, 7, 14), passing mentions (source 4, 12) and related sources/interview with the founder (source 11, 13). Not a single one that will survive scrutiny against 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: per nomination. The subject, on the basis of what's out there, could be doing noble work. But what's out there is not enough, per Wikipedia's |standards, to establish |notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)