Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Campaign For Life


 * 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. Not notable at the present time. First four keep votes were page creator and three SPAs. No prejudice to re-creation should the organisation become more notable in future.  E LIMINATOR JR  TALK  23:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The Campaign For Life

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Sourcing and notability issues. The only independent source sited is The Christian Post, which may have reliable source/verifiability issues (i.e. just because something is notable to report on in a religious source does not necessarily make it notable for wikipedia). A google search of "The Campaign For Life" gets 69 hits. "A Light In The Darkness" + "National Sanctity of Human Life Day" gets 4 hits. "Christian Benefit Alliance" + "Ride for life" gets 3 hits. I also went on Lexus Nexus and found sources from the late 80s that mentioned a "Veterans' Campaign for Life", but couldn't find any news reports on this organization. WP:ORG notes that we should have multiple independent reliable sources. The article describes what the organization does, but doesn't explain why it is notable. Wikipedia is not a directory for people to list info on their favorite organizations, but instead an encyclopedia. Andrew c [talk] 21:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree…Given another year or two the organization may at that point be a “Notable”/”Noteworthy” cause…but at this point sorry to say; has not reached the summit. Shoessss |  Chat  22:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete insufficient verification of notability, blogs and self-referential websites are neither independent nor reliable. Other than the tiny 69 hits on regular search, a Google News search provided zero results. VanTucky  (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Neither the group nor its events are notable, compared to say, Birthright. Bearian 01:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The internet is not the only place sources are found. The above arguments only describe actions to locate sources online.  In addition, isn't a lack of other online information a case to keep an article rather than delete it?  Wikipedia should be a place to turn for information when it cannot be found anywhere else.  I believe the entry is noteworthy.  It is a national campaign affiliated with CareNet and Heartbeat International which both have Wikipedia entries.Dragon224 12:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Keep All the above dissenters are personally biased as evidenced by their own Wikipedia user pages. It appears to me they want this article deleted because it is not in line with their own views.  That is not what Wikipedia should be about.


 * Keep This article is very noteworthy in my opinion and the sources seem respectable enough. The dissenters appear to be personally biased on the subject.  The great thing about Wikipedia is that it contains information from regular people that know something about a certain subject, knowledge that could never come from a book, magazine article, or other "source."  We should embrace unique articles that can show sources, even if those sources aren't scholarly journals.  It seems the people who wanted it deleted are pro-choice and most certainly the people in favor of keeping it are pro-life.  The larger issue is that the organization is notable, the sources verify  it, and it embraces the notion of Wikipedia being the best source for all information.Rburk41 19:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Both users who have voted keep seem to not understand the policy of assuming good faith. As they are new around here, I shall explain quickly. This means that we assume all users, whatever their personal beliefs, are voting with the best of intentions and not in an attempt at a smear campaign. This is one of the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia. Another fundamental policy of Wikipedia, and the most fundamental part of the decision to keep or delete an article, is the concept of notability as verified in reliable, independent sources. Unlike the articles on such groups as Focus on the Family or Birthright, this group has no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Thus, they are unfit for inclusion. In the future, I suggest all users try harder to stick to content, not contributors in their comments. VanTucky  (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't know how the "good faith" is policed or enforced. At any rate, I found the article worthy of appearing in an encyclopedia.  The sources appeared credible and the limited availability of other online deposits of information on the subject make the article more appealing for the Wikipedia catalog in my opinion.
 * *Comment After reading the KEEP requests of this article, I took a second look, and thought to myself; “…did I miss something in the piece….did I overlook a “Noteworthy” event in the organizations history or just disregard a prominent journalistic article on the organization.”  Sorry to say no!  After reviewing the organizations history, searching the Internet for additional sources and combing the library for unbiased opinions, I still cannot find a “Noteworthy” instance this organization was involved in or participated in organizing.  I am not here to point fingers at the authors of the “Keep” comments and say they are pushing agendas, though they feel the right to subject other editors of their biased opinions.  (Moreover, I say, they surely did not read my Shoessss |  Chat  page, or they would not have made these comments)).  However, I will state  Wikipedia is not a list, collection, “Yellow Pages”  or forum to express any, and yes, I will repeat, any point of view.  The Organization is trying to evolve to an encyclopedia level of “Noteworthy” individuals, organization, places and instances in history with unbiased articles.  To quote an old TV show…”just give me the facts Madame…just the facts” and let me make my own mind up.  Again, to repeat myself, this article does not clearly state the “Note-worthiness” of the organization.  Hence, does not belong here. Shoessss |  Chat  01:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep on the condition that the article be re-written, properly sourced, and wikified. A cursory search for 'The Campaign for Life' alone is insufficient. There are numerous independent reliable sources for Birthright International, CARE, and the Ride for Life, all of which are (apparently) affiliated in some way with the topic. I agree that it requires further clarification. MrPrada 08:09, 25 July 2007 (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.