Talk:Prison Fellowship

Quality Boxes
I've been cleaning up the page and wikifying it a bit. When is the proper time to remove the boxes up top? Thanks ConstRepublic (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I am proposing that Wilberforce Forum be merged here, as it contains no third-party material, and thus fails WP:ORG. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't object, but How does that org relate to the "Justice fellowship" section already on this page? Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, I DO oppose, per a Google News shows some USA Today, Washington Post, NY Times, Salon, and Christianity Today coverage extending back to 1996. Jclemens (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Mere hits merely show mention -- they are not evidence of "significant coverage".
 * The USA Today piece is about the movie Amazing Grace, and merely mentions the WF in passing.
 * The WP piece appears to be just a letter to the editor (thus not a RS) about a letter written by somebody who happened to be a senior WF member.
 * I could go on, but really can't be bothered wasting my time documenting them further. If there is any "significant coverage" among this dross, then it is your responsibility to bring it to the discussion.
 * These sorts of results are exactly why I have such a poor opinion of Google-News-hits arguments and the editors who make them. They are simply a disingenuous waste of my time. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tsk. Be nice, please. I'm not wasting your time; I could assert that by nominating a merge without doing a search yourself and addressing the results, you are the one wasting everyone else's time... but I won't.  Having not said that, then, I still don't see a compelling reason for the merge. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jclemens: nothing of what you said has any basis in either fact or WP:MERGE. You have neither evidence of "significant coverage" nor a valid reason to criticise my proposal. That Wilberforce Forum lacks any third party sources is sufficient of "a compelling reason for the merge" on its own. Unless you can provide such "significant coverage", I have no interest in wasting more of my time on you. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)