Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Answers

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Answers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Several source searches are not providing adequate coverage to qualify an article; does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Catholic Answers is certainly encyclopedic. The article may be deficient, but it can be improved with a bit of work. I'm working on other projects at the moment, but I can direct my attention once they are done. Ergo Sum 12:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Deficient" hardly begins to describe the problem. The criteria for a WP entry for an organization include "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." But most of the citations are the organization itself and the others are all related to various degrees. That includes its own promotion of a cruise and items for sale in its shop. Follow the citation to the USCCB and you'll find the organization listed in a table, but no significant coverage. There's a fawning profile of Keating on EWTN that I suppose is a form of journalism, but hard to distinguish from advocacy and not exactly independent. The other EWTN citation is just to a program schedule. Again, not significant by any measure. The Charity Navigator citation would be useful if the article itself had substance, but still doesn't meet the coverage criteria. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – While there doesn't appear to be a lot of in-depth coverage in independent secondary sources, there is definitely a great deal of light coverage. Just to list a few: Huffington Post, Live Science, The Guardian, The Bulletin (newspaper), The San Diego Union-Tribune (newspaper), Hello Giggles, and Teen Vogue. This is legit. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see seven passing mentions... The Banner talk 11:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as per GoneIn60 above. Jzsj (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We need reliable, independent sources that write about the organisation. Passing mentions fail that point. The Banner talk 15:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: due to GoneIn60's incredible job finding new sources. The article will look great after expanded and newly found sources added.– Lionel^(talk) 11:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, GoneIn60 brilliantly found seven passing mentions with no value. Please read WP:RS. The Banner talk 11:42, 1 July 2018 (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.