Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Prayer Network


 * 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   delete. The sourcing used to establish notability has been challenged, and editors favouring retention of the article were not convincing in their defence. Skomorokh, barbarian  06:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

National Prayer Network

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable organisation, article appears to have been created as a cover to recreate the contents of Ted Pike, deleted in AfD [] Pontificalibus (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep; it's reliably sourced. The "old" Ted Pike article which you mentioned was deleted in 2007, so it doesn't make sense to invoke that discussion anyway. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, remember Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. This page is less than a day old and I am currently in the process of finding other reliably sourced information to add to it. I don't think the NPN can be described as non-notable, either. It's at least as notable as Michael Collins Piper, who is considered notable enough to have his own article (and, incidentally, has ties to the NPN).
 * Finally, just because an article (or a closely related article such as Ted Pike has been previously deleted as non-notable doesn't mean it isn't notable. The previous deletion very well could have been made in error; another possibility is that the original incarnation of the article simply didn't provide enough explanation why the subject was notable.
 * I'd also like to comment on the user who posted on [] that "Wikipedia is not Klanwatch". That may be true, but you could also say that Wikipedia is not FishBase; despite this we still have one-sentence articles on obscure topics like Chromis limbaughi, so I'd say this article is on pretty safe ground, in terms of notability. I'm currently in the process of finding more information on Harmony Grant and the organization in general; I admit that this article right now is mostly about Ted Pike but I plan to expand it in the near future. It's not just "a cover to recreate the contents of Ted Pike, deleted in AfD", as you said. Remember to assume good faith, please. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete – Although the article is named for the organization, less than 25% of the text is about the it. Additionally, I do not see significant coverage in secondary sources - emphasis on multiple sources.   ttonyb  (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – I rewrote the article to remove the emphasis on Pike.  ttonyb (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. First, it's almost a G10 as it stands, because it does nothing but present non-RS POVs critical of NPN.  Second, there appear from the Google News hits to be at least three separate organizations which use this name, making such a negative article problematic. While it may meet the GNG, it doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG in any meaningful way, which leaves us two options: either expand it to be NPOV and disambiguate it, or get rid of it.  I fundamentally believe the latter is the better course of action--per the afd comment on Ted Pike, we're not Klanwatch.  I wouldn't be opposed to merging this into an appropriate list, if someone comes up with one. Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when has the Anti-Defamation League been a "non-RS"? It's a widely respected organization that has been around for nearly a century and specializes in the study of anti-Semitism-related topics; as such, it's one of the best sources possible for an article like this. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jclemens, sources are way too thin, borderline G10. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite There are sources to write a neutral article  The POV is made manifest by the failure to even give a link to the organizations site. The nature of the group will be clear enough if done right--in fact, nothing could possibly make it clearer than their own website.    DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What sources? You'd argue to keep an article on the strands of dog fur gumming up my keyboard. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * come on, TPH, start looking at what I do . I say delete here about 30% of the time, not 1% of the time like some other editors you may have in mind. And that's only because I don't bother with the clearly obviously deletes, which make up half the workload here. My general view is that of the articles that come here, most should be deleted.    DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - From the Google News search if you narrow it by adding Oregon to the search, you get three items: one appears like a good source (though its behind a pay wall), one is a trivial mention of this group, and the third is an editorial, so no notability through that alone. A search through the archives of The Oregonian, the regional big paper in the area with archives back to mid-1987, gives only two articles, with one being trivial and the other slightly more than trivial. The Willamette Week and the Portland Tribune have zero articles. In fact its a bit odd that the really left-leaning Willamette Week has nothing, but in some ways that is telling when considering the notability of the group. The WW covers groups like this in general, so the fact that they haven't bothered to cover this group seals the deal. As to the existing sources in the article, it is trivial coverage in the SPL. The ADL is trickier, but I just can't accept it as a RS due to their stated POV at the top of the article pages, which makes you have to question their motives and thus reliability on this topic. As in you wouldn't exactly take an article from the Democratic Party's newsletter to be particularly reliable about say the Republican Party, despite strong editorial oversight. I know the are a highly regarded organization that does good work, but they are not exactly a neutral media outlet. It just doesn't fit in with the spirit of RS. So, simply not enough in-depth coverage in RS at this time, but if they step up their activities then maybe they will get noticed. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I said there were more, and there are: just from GNews (search on the term without limiting to oregon, and then sort out the ones that are actually about this network. it's more tedious, but otherwise things get missed.) Atlanta J & Constitution (a major regional newspaper); 2 articles in al-Jazeera, an international RS which is not likely to share the bias of the ADL, .     I agree about the ADL's bias, but they wouldn't be devoting this much space to it if it were truly trivial.    DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And like I said, one is good (the Atlanta paper), one is an editorial (the al-Jazeera one that has both opinion & editorial in the URL), while the last one didn't show up when limiting it to sources that mention Oregon. But, that one too is an opinion piece as it says at the top. And yes al-Jazeera doesn't share the ADL bias, in fact it is often considered to have the opposite bias (which in many ways is represented in the second opinion piece), see an example of their political cartoons from the ADL. So, like I said one good source from Atlanta, one from Portland, = not notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * even biased sources  show notability, especially when they come from sources on different ends of the spectrum. Opinion pieces about an organization in major sources show notability, though they are not necessarily reliable for facts. There's enough here for an article. I wish they didn't exist. I wish at least they weren't notable. But that doesn't affect their actual notability.    DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally don't care one way or the other if they exist, I only care about the notability guidleines, which say independent, reliable sources, thus unless they are a reliable source, they actually do not count. Here, as opinion pieces, they cannot be considered reliable sources on the subjects, as opinion pieces can only be used on articles about themselves. So, again, doesn't meet the criteria at this time. Maybe if they issue some press releases a paper or two will pick up the story, but until then, no dice. User:Aboutmovies 01:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I came to this page because someone just tried to add a piece written by Rev. Ted Pike as a source to an article. While searching on Google to figure out who Pike is I came across the WP page on the NPN, which contains useful information. For that reason I'd like to keep the article. However I just did a search in Proquest newspaper archive and found almost nothing on the group. The only significant mentions were in articles about the Urbana public access television dispute (when they aired some videos prepared by the NPN). I also chekced Google books, and found little there either. Until more sources can be found, I agree that the article should be deleted.   Will Beback    talk    20:04, 29 September 2009 (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.