Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Carolina Religious Coalition for Marriage Equality


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite 00:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

North Carolina Religious Coalition for Marriage Equality

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:ORG, this has little third party coverage and no coverage outside North Carolina. gnews search. also WP:ORG states ''Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability.'' LibStar (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:ORG should be read carefully as it distinguishes between "local" and "regional", with regional coverage being deemed "a strong indicator of notability" but local coverage being "not an indication". Interest throughout North Carolina would arguably be regional, rather than local.  (See also WP:LOCALINT, which argues that matters of merely local significance may still be notable where they nevertheless pass WP:N.)  However, the more pressing problem here is that the article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.  The article presents compelling evidence that the organisation in question actually does exist, but per WP:EXIST a higher standard is required for "notability". - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  04:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  04:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Notability in this case is that the group takes a position on a controversial issue and seeks to change legislation in North Carolina to permit same-sex marriage. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ORG is the criterion here not if an organisation takes a position on a controversial issue. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've taken a position on the controversial issue of same-sex marriage and sought to change legislation to permit it; it doesn't make me notable unless that position is widely discussed by independent reliable sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * agreed! LibStar (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment on sources - I've just reviewed the sources in the article to refresh my memory and unfortunately The News & Observer piece is now a dead link, the Durham News piece doesn't talk about this organisation but rather three people who happen to be on its steering committee, and the WRAL piece is a trivial mention. The remaining sources aren't independent.  So there's not just a notability issue but also a sourcing one. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * well can't see how it meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG then in the absence of reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. The WRAL article is not a "trivial mention". It is enough on its own to demonstrate notability. The News & Observer reference is still valid, even if it is no longer available online. See this Google News archive search for several references from reliable sources. The summaries displayed by Google News are enough to indicate that these are all valid references, and the article in the newspaper from Fayetteville demonstrates statewide attention for the group. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - Four of the six news stories in the search you linked all appear to refer to the same single incident, a rally sponsored by the organisation. (WP:NOTNEWS). The other two relate to a presenntation of Reverend James Forbes that they sponsored.  The quote from the WRAL source in its entirety is "The North Carolina Religious Coalition for Marriage Equality has a signed statement that says same-sex couples deserve the rights and protections of civil marriage." - the article then goes on to talk about the town council in Chapel Hill.  It's a trivial mention.  The newsobserver piece (now linked to correct article, thanks) is about the Reverend James Forbes, and says in passing, "The interfaith service is sponsored by the N.C. Religious Coalition for Marriage Equality," without any further context - again, it's a trivial mention. To put it another way, they're mentioned in connection with two events of only arguable notability; in the ordinary course of editing we'd make an article about the events and mention the Coalition in those articles.  - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets notability guidelines. The WRAL link isn't trivial. The N&O link has been replaced.  Additional sources - "Religious leaders oppose marriage bill", News 14 Carolina; "Politics to pulpits", The Fayetteville Observer; "Anti-gay marriage amendment introduced" Q-Notes; "The General Assembly Needs You", Independent Weekly; "Legislative update: 'Defense of Marriage'", Independent Weekly; "Lawmakers want ban on gay marriage", WTVD; "Hundreds gather in support of traditional marriage", WTVD; "Worship, eat and ask the reverend", The Durham News; "GOP State Senator Files to Amend N.C.'s Ban on Gay Unions", Winston-Salem Journal; "Faith in America takes on the right", Q-Notes  APK   because, he says, it's true  01:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - Per WP:N the sources have to be significant ("address the subject directly in detail", "more than a trivial mention") and independent ("excludes [...] press releases"). So to deal with your sources. News 14 takes two quotes from people who happen to be members of the organisation (neither "direct" or "in detail").  Fayetteville Observer is pay-to-read and does not obviously refer to the Coalition at all.  Independent Weekly (two sources) consists of a notification that the Coalition will be taking part in the March rally.  (Not "in detail", and see my WP:NOTNEWS concerns above regarding this one event.) Q-Notes source 1 consists solely of a quote from the Coalition's press release, source 2 is about an individual who happens to be a member of the Coalition.  WTVD pieces have a statement from a co-chair of the coalition who is not obviously acting in his capacity as co-chair.  Durham News I've addressed previously.  Winston-Salem Journal is pay to read and does not obviously mention the Coalition.  In short, none of these sources are both significant and independent. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of them are trivial, but a few are enough to satisfy WP:N guidelines. Your interpretation of WP:N might be different than mine, but NCRCME meets notability criteria.  APK   because, he says, it's true  01:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Which ones do you argue are non-trivial? And how do you say they get past the barrier of WP:NOTNEWS?  (That is, why should we have an article on the Coalition rather than just mentioning them in an article about the rally?) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Week keep from their website "the first annual NCRC4ME Lobby Day held in March, 2005. For the first time in North Carolina's history, NCRC4ME organized a statewide lobby day for LGBT-affirming people of faith and religious leaders in opposition to the discriminatory marriage amendment." and "North Carolina is the only southern state that has been successful in keeping the discriminatory marriage amendment from going to a vote for two consecutive years." Here is a list of the Steering Committee. Some reverse engineering to suss out what events were called and what the group was referred to in the media will start to unearth plenty of reliable sources. The article need some time invested to do this. Do a styay of execution and invest the time to understand the subject including what impact they have had. that they didn't have the wisdom to pick a better name and hire a press agent isn't surprising - church folks aren't really known for this.  -- Banj e  b oi   03:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ORG. Sources used are either passing mentions of event sposorship, or primarily about certain members or guest speakers of the group which fail WP:NOTINHERITED. The WRAL source has one sentence mention the org in passing. I also cannot find any substantial coverage of the organization itself. While this org may make it self notable at some point, it does not meet the WP:GNG at this time.  Jim Miller  See me 18:19, 17 November 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.