Talk:Catholic News Agency

Untitled
I added this page because it had no Wiki-entry. I had seen news from it on a few occasions. I see that it was deleted, the reason given being lack of content. I think that is not a logical reason.

I added 3 cases of EWTN picking content from CNA. Given that EWTN with 123 million homes connected to it is a major (perhaps Major with Capital M I must say), news service, the content from CNA can not be called irrelevant. And it gets good and bad press, from Australia to Shanghai, so it is notable, even if people in Shanghai do not agree with its views.

This news service needs a Wikipedia page. History2007 (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

not only in english
by now there are besides english, versions in german, italien, spanish and portugese 2003:DA:9BE9:EB01:A84B:2BF6:87D0:BF49 (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (It is a major Catholic service for news on the Internet.) --Gondolabúrguer (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Find an RS that says so Softlemonades (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jahaza Thanks for your edits, but most of what you cited isnt "coverage" its their name being mentioned. WP:GNG Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Softlemonades (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you really insist you can AFD it, but I think it's a waste of time. It's difficult to Google because the name of the news agency is in all their articles, but the agency gets covered when it has major personnel changes etc., because it's a significant source for Catholic news. Jahaza (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Jahaza If you are the page creator, please do your own research rather than pointing fingers at others for not identifying sources. The vast, vast majority of content relating to this agency does appear to be self-created. Nevertheless it appears IMHO to be notable. In service of the Wikipedia project (and only incidentally in service of a user who relies on a claim the truth is out there but "hard to google") I added a *first page Google result* which supports notability/RS Oblivy (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Oblivy, I am not the page creator and I recently added a couple of RSs to the page, so your criticism is entirely misplaced. Jahaza (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course you're right. Sorry for missing that. I do stand by my point that it's not constructive to suggest that people aren't finding coverage of a topic because they can't work Google although I could have phrased it more nicely. With respect to your recent change, I'm going to move the ref tag back where it was because the citation doesn't support the second ("anglophone") section of the sentence. If you have a concern about that let me know and hopefully we can work it out. Oblivy (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)