Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Medical Association


 * 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. Dipankan ( Have a chat? ) 05:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Medical Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

notability Dexpp (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep for sure. They publish the Linacre Quarterly one of the top journals on medical ethics. And Google scholar gets enough hits anyway. And they have branches across the US. They are not a "nobody organization". There are lots of pages in Wikipedia with 20 times less notability. I do not see the point in this Afd. History2007 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC) (Note: User:History2007 is the author and principal contributor to this article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. History2007 (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per the above, and remind the nominator about WP:BEFORE. StAnselm (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still thinking about it. This is not as obvious as the above commentators seem to think. The article contains only two references, one of them from "Priests for Life", so more neutral sources are needed. A quick look at Google News Archive finds almost entirely Catholic sources; I would like to see some more general coverage and will look later. --MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I added a few more refs. This is an organization with many physicians and many student chapters in medical schools across the US. It is much more notable than all the high schools which have Wikipages... History2007 (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm sorry, but I just don't see evidence that this 900-member association meets the standards of WP:ORG, specifically the requirement for independent reliable sources. I could not find any coverage at all in sources other than specifically Catholic sources, such as the Catholic News Service. To me that means that no Independent Reliable Sources have taken note of this organization. (Would you consider a Mormon organization to meet the criteria if the only coverage it got was in Ensign, the official magazine of the LDS church? Would you regard a Baptist group as having Independent Reliable Sources if they all came from the Baptist Press?) --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As you wish. But your search was for pop-media, no scholarly journals. There are sources now with Pediatrics (journal), BMJ and Bioethics (journal). Are those independent? They are. Are they reliable? Absolutely. And there are more, but I was just getting tired of doing all the searching... It is a scholarly type search that shows those, it is not one for CNN, etc. This is an organization organized by MDs, not celebrities. History2007 (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your hard work on this. However, it is still unconvincing. The fact that an individual gets things published in a peer-reviewed journal does not make that person notable; the same is true for an organization. I note, for instance, that the Pediatrics piece (a commentary, not a peer reviewed article) has been cited by others only 24 times, way below the standard for WP:ACADEMIC notability. The vast majority of listings found at Google Scholar are from the organization's own journal, Linacre, and receive almost no citations. However it occurs to me that, as an alternative to deletion, this page could be redirected to Linacre Quarterly. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I do not agree, given that the studies were funded by the organization, the lawsuits were launched by it, etc. Once you have big time lawyers that sue governments, you are notable. Is this notable? Is this? Is this? This organization is more notable and encyclopedic than many, many Wikipedia entries. But we can leave it there. History2007 (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable by references in news sources given in article. Just because they are mainly Catholic sources doesn't mean they're not reliable.  Eternal Word Television Network is a well-established network with lay ownership, and certainly no worse than Fox News.  The organisation is also referenced in respected international publications like Catholic Herald and The Tablet, e.g. "Drink, drugs and divorce are damaging young". --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: my objection was not to the RELIABILITY of the sources, it was to the INDEPENDENCE of the sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have seen no evidence at all that the Catholic Medical Association has any type of ownership interest or control over sources such as EWTN, or The Tablet (published outside the US), etc. There is no evidence of "hidden coordination" among these news sources and the medical association which is the subject of his Afd. Have you seen any evidence to that effect? If so, please share it with us. Else there can be no assumption that these news organizations are part of a hidden grand scheme of some type. There can be no assumption of guilt by association on this issue. History2007 (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I am no fan, but there are plenty of reliable sources to show their notability. Independent sources are available. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously keep -- This is an assocaition for medics who are alos Catholic. I have no doubt it exists to promote Catholic views in relation to medical ethics and such matters.  Whatever publications may eminate from it, an assocation that has existed for 80 years is likely to be notable.  Note: I am not a Catholic.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2012 (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.