Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Congress of Families


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

World Congress of Families

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable entity that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, as opposed to press releases and other fringe material, trivial mentions, and other things that cannot demonstrate notability. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep There are press stories in various publications alluding to apparent active opposition to the group in Amsterdam in 2009, but the trace of this appears to be sourced to press releases by WCF themselves; their press office certainly seems to be a busy one. So it is difficult separating the primary from proper 3rd party coverage. However there are also two discussions of the group in The Guardian: on their 1999 congress; and a 2007 column; I'm inclining to think these are just about enough to indicate notability. AllyD (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added The Guardian references to the article, along with one to a book with a feminist legal theory perspective which discusses this organisation. AllyD (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that two pieces that barely pass the criterion of significant coverage (I'm not sure that the legal book even does - two paragraphs), generated over fifteen years of existence, can really support an article. (Comment is Free is not, I don't think, considered a reliable source, and the mention is at any rate trivial; the Telegraph writer is affiliated with the conference, and obviously cannot contribute any third-party notability.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Guardian "Comment is Free" piece is by Michelle Goldberg; I refer you to WP:RS - specifically "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." AllyD (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As is Christina Odone. JASpencer (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. For three reasons, (1) press coverage, (2) attendence at events and (3) opposition generated - including no doubt a few WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes to come up.  JASpencer (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What press coverage? (The other two reasons are irrelevant; WP:ITSPOPULAR is not a notability rationale if you can't back it up with sources.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep  4 wp:notability-suitable references with substantial coverage on them. North8000 (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See my comment to AllyD above; two are not notability-suitable at all, and the other two are just not sufficient. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2012 (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.