Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Focus on the Family Canada


 * 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. AfD is for discussing the deletion of an article. Please see Help:Merging for information on how to open a merge discussion. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant    talk    15:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Focus on the Family Canada

 * – ( View AfD View log )

PROD contested, with the user citing the number of Google hits the group gets. Google hits, however, do not equate to significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG: most of the hits are from articles in which a spokesperson from the group comments on a social issue (this is not coverage of the group - news sources frequently get a quote from either side) or in which a possibly notable person's association with the group is mentioned (notability is not inherited). Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep article needs more sources, but it is a significant organization as at least two of its former officers are serving in the national government, it has recently completed a facility with room for over 100 staff, and has apparently a strong agenda to include Christian values in legislation, just like the American branch. These facts alone are likely to generate continuing coverage in RS, and continuing notability.  Sources regarding the activities of the org aren't too hard to find. Here are a few: , ,  ,  -KeptSouth (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the sort of trivial coverage I'm talking about in my nomination. "This candidate is associated with FotF" or "FotF has an opinion on this event." Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

*Keep - By all accounts this organization seems to be very active in Canadian social issues, so it is independently notable without having to inherit any notability from its American counterpart. The diff KeptSouth provided linking to the New York Times was not simply a token right-wing quotation; it was evidence that the organization was actively involved in the legal process in trying to keep spanking legal in Canada. Kansan (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you help find sources that are about the group? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm at work at the moment so it might be this afternoon (US time), but I'll try to do so. Kansan (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I took a look at this, and to correct myself, the diff was about same-sex couples and alimony rights, not spanking. The other three sources KeepSouth provided were opinion sources so not particularly useful here. I typed the organization's name into Google Scholar and found evidence that the organization provided funding to some research in the 1990s, but not having access to the full publication beyond the search snippet, I couldn't elaborate further, and searches along that line weren't helpful.
 * By the way, the intro implies that this is separate from the main US group, but I found an article from 2009 about James Dobson (founder of the US counterpart, of course) that describes FOFT Canada as "his Focus on the Family Canada": Kansan (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think we should explore the idea of a merge? (Thanks for your work, by the way.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do lean in that direction, but ideally I'd like to find something that further clarifies the two group's relationship, especially because some of the sources indicate that the Canada group has a "head" of its own. I agree that keeping things in one article seems to be best by this point, as the sources found aren't as thoroughly about the subject as ideal for a Wikipedia article. Kansan (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to add that if we merged, we wouldn't have to bring everything over, since the group essentially deals with the same issues as the American counterpart. Kansan (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The sources I cited were just what came up rather quickly - they were not intended to be definitive, be-all-end-all examples. Irrespective of your characterizations of the particular examples, it is nonetheless true that the group has significant coverage and meets the threshold test of notability. - KeptSouth (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, though, can you find some of it? It gets a lot of Google hits, but like I said, "here's a quote from the group on an issue" and "candidate is associated with this group" are not coverage. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sourcing can be improved through normal editing procedures, the political importance of Focus on the Family seems axiomatic and a low bar for inclusion of organizational histories for its affiliates outside America seems prudent. Carrite (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CLUB would seem to contradict that. Can you help find significant sources on the Canadian affiliate specifically? Otherwise, perhaps the affiliates could be mentioned in the main article (it wouldn't quite be a merge because there isn't really any sourced content here). Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. Current sourcing (and common sense, for that matter) demonstrates notability. Note that since nominator appears to be proposing a merger, this is yet another "Why are we here?" AfD. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was proposing a delete, but Kansan found a source that described this group as part of FotF rather than as an affiliate of FotF. Your comment about current sourcing demonstrating notability, however, is rather silly, as out of nine refs, six are primary sources and three are passing mentions.
 * Perhaps someone who knows the Canadian legal system can explain whether being an intervenor in a notable case confers notability? To make an analogy with the U.S. legal system, is it like being primary counsel (notable) or like filing an amicus brief (non-notable)? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to be unique to the Canadian legal system and more akin to filing amicus briefs. Intervention can occur without the consent of either party based on this page: []. At this point in time, the citations for a good article are clearly just not there so I change my vote to merge to Focus on the Family. Kansan (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2011 (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.