Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (2nd 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. j⚛e deckertalk 14:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This group does not appear to be notable (WP:ORG, WP:GNG). It gets a lot of hits in obviously unusable sources, a few trivial mentions that don't pass "significant." SPLC has identified it as a hate group, but I don't think SPLC sources alone can hold up an article. I also don't think that its leader's recent comments about shooting liberal academics are more than a news event. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep C-FAM holds Special Consultative Status with the United Nations, and recently organized a conference with the current Papal ambassador to the UN.GLAAD devotes an entry to Ruse and C-FAM on its Commentator Accountability Project (CAP). GLADD and SPLC find Ruse/C-FAM to be notable (nevermind C-FAM's UN status). That should be enough. Many orgs with far lower profiles maintain wikis. This is a no-brainer.Defensor1956 (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a non-profit organization. It seems like a petty dispute. RedThunderbird625 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, speedy close per the still-accurate analysis/consensus at the prior AFD. Deletion proposal seems to be an offshoot of a content dispute. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A keep close four years ago is not grounds for a speedy close now. If you think it's notable, make that argument. I don't, because I don't think the sources out there constitute significant coverage, and no one produced anything better when I asked on the talk page a week ago. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it can be, Notability is not temporary, and an almost-everybody-but-the-nominator, nearly unanimous discussion reaching consensus that coverage met the GNG is compelling, especially given a nomination that's just a hand-waving dismissal of sources rather than a well-reasoned analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep What kind of sources would the critic find suitable? Eggloff (talk)EggloffEggloff (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Would the Washington Post work for you? The New York Times? How about Buzzfeed? Eggloff (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)EggloffEggloff (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per the multiple press articles mentioned in the article. Quoting from one of the references: "Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), a non-governmental organization that specializes in assisting United Nations (U.N.) delegations to negotiate U.N. resolutions, treaties and conventions." With credentials like that, the suggestion of it being non-notable is dubious at best. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Here are just a few: From the Washington Post: "Leading Catholic conservatives reacted to the new guide with disdain. Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute in Washington, called it "a blatant attempt to convince Catholics that they can vote for candidates who are wrong on the primary human rights issue of our time, which is abortion."

From the New York Times: "Of course, these views are hardly mainstream. For every Rod Dreher, the Orthodox Christian blogger, and meat-eater, who recently wrote a respectful post about Dr. Camosy and the others, or Andrew Sullivan, the Catholic blogger who also praised Dr. Camosy, there may be an Austin Ruse. Writing in Crisis, a Catholic magazine, in October, he called Dr. Camosy’s views “deeply offensive.”

From BuzzFeed: "But Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, an advocacy group that opposes LGBT and abortion rights in international agreements, said LGBT advocates are scapegoating the Holy See when in reality there is broad-based support for excluding sexual orientation and gender identity language.

“The Holy See is an easy target but the fact of the matter is there is no real interest in accepting [sexual orientation and gender identity] language in U.N. documents,” Ruse said. “Opposition to [this] language is widespread and includes nations from every continent. I cannot speak for the Holy See but from experience over years at the U.N., the Holy See is nothing more or less than a part of a coalition of states advancing what they believe is right.”


 * Actually, these are exactly the sort of trivial coverage that doesn't confer notability, as I explained in my post up there. Buzzfeed is not a reliable source. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Buzzfeed is only the 43rd largest website in the country and the 124th largest in the world What's more, Lester Feder, who handles the LGBT beat for Buzzfeed came from Politico and is one of the most notable journalists covering that beat, particularly from an international angle. He uses C-FAM's leader on a regular basis. And what of the New York Times and Washington Post? If C-FAM were not notable enough for an article, you would suspect it would not be the subject of coverage in two of the most influential newspapers in the world. One wonders if your political views aren't coming into play here. Eggloff (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)EggloffEggloff (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * References


 * Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Roscelese is a well known type here. See her Userpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.75.193 (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.75.193 (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * keep not an a+ notability, but clearly passes GNG with multiple 3rd party sources writing dedicated articles. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, it's commonly quoted, appears quite influential as shown in the many books which discuss it.--Loomspicker (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Clearly this is headed towards a keep regardless, but I do hope the closing admin will note the number of obvious sockpuppets here. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:08, 12 May 2014 (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.