Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic News Service


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 08:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Catholic News Service
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely self-sourced. In spite of its exorbitant claims of world relevance, there is nothing here that doesn't point to this being yet another small group of cranks nagging at the media to comply to catholic ideas in their free time. Whatever link they seem to think they have to the U.S. conference of catholic bishops seems to be entirely one-sided. complainer (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On your userpage, you've posted a template called "Religion is harmful". The textbox currently says, "This user is an Atheist and believes religion is harmful to society."  Does this also mean that you think that this topic is harmful to society?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What were your results from WP:BEFORE B5? I gave up after thousands, but I don't have a quick way to count the number of links.  Did you consider adding to your AFD nomination a mention of the effect on the encyclopedia in terms of the number of red links a deletion would create?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Described in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and the American News Media (2012) as "the principal Catholic source of national news" and credited with helping to "professionalize" the Catholic press. The Catholic University of America archives page has some detailed historical information about the news agency under both its current name and its original one, the National Catholic Welfare Conference News Service.  Here's a story from NPR about the recent removal of its editor. Other sources include  Numerous citations of CNS by other reliable sources (see for example the results of a HighBeam search ) indicate it also passes WP:NMEDIA #4.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Catholic News Service is a prominent Roman Catholic publication used to disseminate information related to the Church. Books published by academic presses, such as The Future of Religious Freedom: Global Challenges (published by Oxford University Press), list the newspaper among their citations. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Arxiloxos. It looks like WP:BEFORE was not followed here. StAnselm (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The preferred thing to have done would have been to look at how often Catholic News Service has been cited as an RS in other Wikipedia articles... Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep CNS is a widely used outlet, both witin and without the Church. It is responsible for disseminating news and events on an international scale, and is cited by both religious and secular sources. Also, many articles on the Wiki itself utilize CNS as a WP:RS. - Pax  Verbum  14:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Frequently cited by all major secular news sources, including PBS, New York Times, etc. FWIW, I am an Episcopalian. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. It's obvious that the article must be improved, but no doubts about notability criteria. Millbug  talk 20:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Even if it lacks independent sources, it is clearly notable. A lack of independent sources is a reason for tagging for improvement, not one for deletion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep For all the reasons given above. Safiel (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2016 (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.