Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Trail (second nomination)

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. John254 18:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Trail[edit]

Re-creation of an article already AfD'd as non-notable and promotional. Speedy declined by an admin who objected to the original AfD decision. I can't see that anything has changed. The trail is a commercial venture. Most of the article is a plug for the company's activities and there are no sources other than three recent newspaper articles about the activities of the company's founders, clearly part of their PR drive. andy (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy Keep. If I may present a few facts in defence of this article:

1. The original AfD was a very, very curious call – the admin in question completely ignored the three-to-one consensus to Keep the article and justified his decision with the strange statement that “A Christian newspaper covering a Christian topic isn't really an objective source.” The admin made an incorrect statement: the media source was not a newspaper. It was the Catholic News Service, an international news organisation whose notability is not questioned by the secular media.

2. The article in question has been edited and rewritten to remove any suggestion of promotional puffery that tainted its original incarnation. I believe it meets WP:N requirements in that regard. I would invite any editor to make additional changes if they feel this aspect of the article requires more polishing.

3. The article’s sources are three international news services: CNN, Associated Press and Catholic News Service. The fourth source is Haaretz, one of Israel’s leading newspapers. I believe this passes WP:RS.

4. The argument to delete the trail because it is a “commercial venture” is silly – any public attraction where admission is charged is a “commercial venture.” Wikipedia does not disqualify articles based on this. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the proposal is not to delete the article because the trail is a commercial venture but because the article is fundamentally spammy. The sources may be leading newspapers but that's not the same as notability - these are travel articles about the company's activities developed from the company's own PR. There are very few ghits that aren't PR-based - after all ~~it was only invented last year~~ only launched this year. If all mention of the company is removed there's only a very short stub. andy (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Please see #2 in my initial comments. You are welcome to edit the article further, if you genuinely wish to see it preserved online. As for the press coverage, CNN and Associated Press do not engage in PR puffery. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN article is credited to AP. So that's one reference less! andy (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, there are still 3 credible references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElVacilando (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- More commentz If I may add; as I said down below in my thoughts, I don't think that the Catholic News Source is good enough to base an article's stability on. Sure, it's notable, but again, is it really objective? A Christian source has a significantly higher chance of covering a Christian topic than normal news. My main point is that that fact makes the CNS a much weaker source. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 06:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:N, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." If the coverage by the Associated Press does not fulfill this requirement, then nothing would. Hence, the Jesus Trail is notable. Furthermore, there is no mention of any "company" in the article at all. There are two sentences about who founded the trail and how it is maintained, and these can be removed if necessary (although I don't believe it is necessary), and still leave a substantial article. ElVacilando —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElVacilando (talk • contribs) 13:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key word is significant coverage. A few newspaper articles, all triggered by a press release, isn't significant. So far almost nobody has walked this route, it's not in any hiking magazines that I can find nor any religious websites. In fact almost nobody knows about it and almost nobody is talking about it. In a couple of years it may be as significant as the pilgrimage to Santiago but not yet, and WP isn't the place to drum up custom. andy (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is me again. Uh, all newspaper feature articles are triggered by a press release. If you are reading an article about a hiking trail, the Jonas Brothers, a new software program, a candidate's appearance at a specific location -- it all originates with a press release. That's PR 101, so I don't see where you are going with that argument. Furthermore, how can you say "nobody knows about it and almost nobody is talking about it"? And how do you know that "nobody has walked this route"? Are you the guy selling tickets? If I may be bold, I would respectfully request that you please withdraw your nomination and work with the article's author to improve the text. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spent 17 years as a newspaper and TV journalist, including 4 years with the BBC. I used to teach journalism at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. My brother in law writes travel articles for the Sunday Times. So please take it from me that not all features originate with PR material but very many travel features do which, notoriously, compromises their independence.

Your other comments are aggressive and impolite - be civil, please . Try a few minutes on Google and you'll see very little that can't be traced directly back to PR. andy (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you found my comments to be a bit on the hard-sell side. As I am reading your comments, I believe that you are making statements that appear to be incorrect and appear to deviate from WP:NPOV. However, I might suggest that we step back and allow other editors to participate in this discussion. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The simple formulation of NPOV is "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves". My statements that almost nobody knows about it, walks it or is talking about it are facts that can be verified through Google and indeed the travel company's own website - the optimum times to walk the route are "October to November & February to mid-May", but promotional activities didn't begin until February and most newspaper coverage was as a result of the AP article in June (see here) which incidentally says the company "hopes to bring thousands of tourists". andy (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not the most notable subject in the world, but has substantial coverage in three reliable and independent sources. I disagree with the deprecation of sources by mindreaders who assert that the reporters and newspapers were helpless drones who automatically wrote and published the different stories because they received a press release, like they did not receive and toss 100 press releases for each one which leads to a story. They have editorial review and decide which press releases are of sufficient importance to justify the reporter to create a story worthy of column inches. If WP:N needs to be revised to allow Wikipedia editors to read the mind of the reporters and editors and disallow coverage as showing notability when they weere the helpless victims of a press release to initiate the writing of a story, then please do so. These are not mere reprints of a press release, such as might be found in a small town free shopper paper. Edison (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Optimum times" to walk, as I understand the statement, relates to the Middle East weather (the best times to be out on on a trail). Summer in Israel is quite hot, and December and January can be damp. Absent of specific numbers relating to the volume of tourist and athlete traffic on this trail, statements on "nobody" paying any attention appear to be opinions (particularly in view of the media coverage). Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a well known route through Israel. Despite what the wikipedia article says this trail has been in existence for many years now --T-rex 14:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Either you are mistaken, or our article is wrong. It says it was founded in 2007 (and IIRC from my research in the last AfD, it was late 2007, so that would me it hasn't been in existence for even a year yet). Just wondering if you had additional information to add to the article, or if your vote was based on false information. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is my understanding that our article is wrong --T-rex 21:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's interesting. Do give us a reference please. :) andy (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion advocates arguing whether AP or CNN coverage is sufficient for an article of this length undermines their credibility. Jclemens (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not an overwhelming amount of notability, but enough, and verifiability is adequate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Worried about it becoming a spam-magnet, but it seems notable and verified by reasonably reliable sources. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable, reliable references, what's not to keep? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason it was deleted the first time was because it didn't have enough coverage. As the article's author I believe that the Jesus trail is a legitimate article because the AP has picked it up. It is notable, has reliable sources, and isn't biased. ElVacilando (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it you are also one of the founders of the company. Did AP approach you or did you approach them? andy (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No red flags, no reason to delete. -- Quartermaster (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The CNN source (which, in my defense, was added after the original AFD had been closed) is notable enough. I still don't think that a Christian news source covering a Christian topic really gives notability, as chances are that the same news source will cover a small-town parade in Oregon. That doesn't mean the parade has significant notability; it just happens to be under the same subject matter. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 06:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmmm? Isn't a claim of insufficiency towards the Catholic News Service as a source on Christian events equivalent to saying that Black Entertainment Television would be insufficient as a source on African-American events? If so, I don't think I'm going too far in saying that such a judgement in the last AfD shows an anti-religious bias in the same way that a rejection of a BET source would show an anti-ethnic bias. Or am I mistaken here? --Firefly322 (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply You're mistaken. BET covering an "African American olympics" in Texas is ok, but again, that would be expected. BET does not cover new brands of tables, it covers things relating to its viewership. CNS does not review videogames, but covers everything Christian. The fact that something Christian has been covered by a Christian news source does not make it notable (the same way that an ethnic rally covered by an ethnic source, or a video game covered by PC Gamer, is not inherently notable). I'm not saying that they're totally discounted as sources, and I'm not saying they're not a good source; I'm just saying that you really can't use them if they're unsupported, as they're not exactly objective are they? Of course, they're supported now so it's fine. But thank you for jumping to the conclusion that I hate religion and black people (I kid, I kid). :P Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 08:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Reply I am guessing that MoP is unfamiliar with the Catholic News Service, since that international news service (in existence since 1920) emphatically does not "cover everything Christian." In any event, WP:RS does not disallow Catholic or other faith-based media as being insignficant or non-notable, so Catholic News Service is considered a reliable source. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what this is They're a leading source of news for Catholic goings-on, because they're a Catholic source. Again (I feel like a broken record), they're not objective. Their notability isn't the question here, it's their relation to the subject matter. While WP:RS does say that sources should be related to the subject matter, I don't think it quite means that everything CNS says we put into an article (and no, I'm not a religion basher; if this discussion were on cats and cat magazines I'd say the same thing). Basically, just because the Christian source has published an article on the Christian trail doesn't mean that the trail is otherwise notable. Hope that makes sense... Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 15:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors who have contributed to this AfD seem to think that coverage in a respectable newspaper is de facto an indicator of notability. You and I (in my case as an experienced and cynical journalist) are in the minority in believing that it's not as simple as that (Max Clifford would probably agree with us, but he's not here right now). Add in a bit of religion and I kinda think you're on a loser with this argument... Frankly I wish I hadn't bothered with this AfD. It depresses me. andy (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2008 (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.