Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglicans for Life

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Majority consensus is to Keep. The Helpful One 23:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicans for Life

[edit]
Anglicans for Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources. I get one book, An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, that may have significant coverage (Google Preview won't let me see the whole thing), but everything else is the president of the group being quoted on a social issue, or the group's name appearing in a list of groups that took part in some event, or otherwise trivial/not actually coverage of the group. Not notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Over 61,000 Google hits for the exact phrase "Anglicans for Life" indicates to me that adequate third-party independent non-trivial coverage is out there somewhere. I'm in favor of a very low bar for political organizations at Wikipedia because this is the sort of material that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia. Tag for additional sources, let it stand. And, for what it's worth, I'm militantly pro-choice myself. That shouldn't have anything to do with anything, and it doesn't. Carrite (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:GOOGLEHITS argument. I looked for reliable sources before I nominated and couldn't find what I would consider sufficient; it would be courteous to put in the same amount of effort. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Hits method is actually a pretty good predictor of whether independent sourcing exists. If one gets up to this sort of a count, Las Vegas stops taking action that there's nothing out there. There's something out there, all right — the problem being the top of the Google finds list is saturated with a group's own material. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I looked for sources. Can you point out things I might have missed? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here we go... Here is AN INDICATION that the group is treated in a serious way in the book Catholics against the Church: Anti-Abortion Protest in Toronto, 1969-1985 by Michael Cuneo, published by the University of Toronto Press. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's A LINK indicating that the "Silent No More Awareness" campaign is a joint project of Anglicans for Life and Priests for Life. A search for third party coverage may be reasonably expanded to include this search term. Realizing full well how much the nominator hates using Google as an estimating tool, I will nevertheless point out that the exact phrase "Silent No More Awareness" returns 209,000 hits. The haystack just got a lot bigger... Carrite (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's COVERAGE of the "Silent No More Awareness Campaign" including mention of Anglicans for life in the book Mommy Let Me Live: How Can You Miss What You Never Had? by Lakisha Chapman. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For those of you who love yer corporate media, here's A USA TODAY ARTICLE quoting Anglicans for Life founder Georgette Forney extensively. She is a leading anti-abortion activist, quite clearly. If one wants a bigger haystack, a google search for the exact phrase "Georgette Forney" adds another 17,600 search possibilities... Carrite (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's MORE MAINSTREAM MEDIA COVERAGE of a protest conducted by Silent No More Awareness Campaign. See the last couple paragraphs... You get the point... This is just aimless flipping around the haystack and there are lots of needles there. Again: I'm pro-choice, but I favor a low bar for political organizations OF ALL STRIPES in Wikipedia and this group is miles and miles over it, as far as I'm concerned. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PublishAmerica is not a reliable source, "this group's president was quoted on a social issue" is not coverage, and "this group was one of half a dozen that participated in an event" is not significant. If these are the best sources you could find, that confirms the lack of notability rather than anything else. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: SILive.com, appearing directly above this comment, is the internet edition of the newspaper the Staten Island Advance. Carrite (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent) Comment - They're NOT the "best" sources I can find, they're the result of 20 or so minutes flipping rather randomly through something like 200,000 possible pages mentioning either the group, the group's founder, or the group's main public face. Of these, the book, the USA Today article, and the Staten Island Live-dot-com piece should be sufficient to settle the matter. It's a shitty article but it's also a bad challenge. Keep and improve. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've already said that you favor a very low bar for inclusion because you want to include this content, so I'm not hoping to convince you. I'm just hoping that other users will realize that pay-to-publish companies and go-to quotes do not confer notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hmmmm, are you seriously using the old ILIKEIT canard for an article about an anti-abortion group — for me? That would amuse my friends to no end... Fighting about this obvious bad challenge further is a waste of all of our time. There are more than enough links already showing above to demonstrate that this organization meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion-worthiness of organizations. If anyone else spent half an hour at the task, working Google hits outside the top 10 pages, they could find as many more. Indeed, if five people spent half an hour each, they'd find five times as many possible sources. It's not difficult, the haystack is massive. Carrite (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the entire stack of Google Books and Google News hits for their former name and their current name and did not find anything I considered significant coverage. You talk about what needs to be done - I've done it, and I don't think this passes the notability bar. "We might find something" and "we could find something" are pretty meaningless. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that would be 301 hits, not 61000. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And 474 hits, not 209,000. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also a WP:GOOGLEHITS argument. Could you help provide some significant third-party coverage if the article is to be kept? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there are entries National or Diocesan directories, then these form reliable sources. An Episcopal Dictionary is not a Directory of the Church listing approved ministries, approved associations or groups. The article has the heading "Anglicans" for ... ... If it is going to proceed as an entry here, then it needs to be verified that it is an auspiced activity of the Episcopal Church. Pro life, Pro Choice, Pro Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with it. Either it has ecclesial auspice or it merits deletion as we cannot go listing something which names a Communion and is not auspiced by that communion.--Whiteguru (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't work that way. If it is notable, it can have an article whether or not it is approved, and if it is not notable, official approval won't save it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - organization has been for nearly 50 years and has had a large impact on Anglican discourse. Article could do with better sourcing but it has been around uncontested since 2007. - Haymaker (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide evidence that it has "had a large impact on Anglican discourse"? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you respond to my criticism of Carrite's links, which include, but are not limited to, a) that they are go-to quotes from the president rather than actual coverage of the organization and b) that mention in a list of groups that attended an event is not significant coverage? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually your first statement proves the point; the media have decided that this is a "go-to" organization for anti-choice Episcopalians and their ilk, and thus naturally want a quote from the group's leadership. As to your actual request, I'm an inclusionist. I've argued at many AfDs that frequent and repeated listings or mentions in secondary sources qualifies as sufficient sourcing. You won't find any quarter from me. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. As for my POV, see my user page. I am gay, feminist, pro-choice, and Episcopalian. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll have to disagree about the go-to quotes - in my view, they simply don't constitute coverage of the organization that would satisfy WP:ORG. (Re: the JLI argument, I wasn't suggesting that Carrite wants to keep the article because of hir political views, and I don't think you do either. I linked to that policy because Carrite referred to hir own personal standard for notability, rather than a Wikipedia standard, saying that zie thinks that political organizations "should" be in an encyclopedia.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I saw this minutes after it was nom'ed. Initially I didn't find much on AFL, but did find coverage on "Silent No More." I was leaning to Merge to Silent, but decided to wait a couple days to see what developed. Based partly on Carrite's persuasive argument, I think we should Keep AFL and expand content about Silent. That would push the article securely over the WP:N bar. What the heck is Anglicanism anyway? "Catholic Lite – same rituals, half the guilt." Lionel (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that SNM has enough coverage to be notable, but it is a joint project of AFL and PFL (as well, unlike AFL, it's explicitly non-denominational and claims to be apolitical as well); one can't claim its notability for AFL. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you respond to my criticism of Carrite's links, which include, but are not limited to, a) that they are go-to quotes from the president rather than actual coverage of the organization and b) that mention in a list of groups that attended an event is not significant coverage? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 21 April 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anglicans_for_Life&oldid=1085498903"