Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/40 Days For Life


 * 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. I am posting the additional sources noted here to the article's talk page, and I leave it to the editors involved there to add them to the article as appropriate. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

40 Days For Life

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about a local pro-life group, unsourced, no assertion of notability. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete. Fails WP:SOAPBOX; cites no secondary sources. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is about a national pro-life group who is being mentioned in news coverage  (Sacramento Bee, The Guardian) and has up coming protests. Though it does stand to be expanded and could be better sourced. - Schrandit (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced shameless promotion. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Has had press coverage in the The Guardian, AP, and Reuters . This appears to be a large national organization, not a local organization. While there is significant coverage in mainstream publications, there is even more coverage in major religious publications such as The National Catholic Register and Zenit . Dgf32 (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; that is not press coverage! It's an automatically-printed press release issued by the group itself.  I don't see any third party reliable sources anywhere in this article.  Tempshill (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for pointing that out. The Reuters article was a press release. However, there still exists third party coverage in The Guardian, Sacramento Bee, and a large volume of coverage in the religious media including the National Catholic Register, Zenit, and many other publications. I still think we should Keep this article. Dgf32 (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, and http://www.sacbee.com/city/story/452835.html looks perfectly fine. Hobit (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, the Bee definitely is a reliable and third-party source, and I can't imagine why the Catholic matter should be discounted simply because they're also pro-life. If all are counted, this fulfills the notability criteria of multiple reliable sources.  Nyttend (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, covered in the Sacramento Bee, The Guardian, and the National Catholic Register. --Pixelface (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.