Talk:Courage UK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is covered by WikiProject LGBT studies, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to LGBT issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.

[edit] Speedy deletion?

At 01:55, 7 December 2006, User:CovenantD nominated this page for speedy deletion:

This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)

Can someone clarify how this importance is to be stated? Or more importantly, how it is to be tested?

I have no idea whether Courage UK is important enough to have a Wikipedia article, because I haven't the faintest idea how important it is within Evangelical circles, or within the discussions related to the ex-gay movement, or within the day-to-day life of the average citizen of England. If someone can clarify that, then we can all agree on whether this article should be deleted.

But I am very nervous about the idea of a speedy deletion of this article, since the stated reason is that this group might not be important. I would rather delete it once its unimportance is established, not merely hypothesized. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 10:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself. Many topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to appear in Wikipedia. This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable encyclopedia article about the topic. CovenantD 10:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that makes it a prod/afd candidate, but the speedy criteria says that the article can't ASSERT notability. This article *does* ASSERT notability, the concern is that it's not backed up. I've replaced the speedy tag with prod, if this subject is notable hopefully some additional documentation and good sourcing will be added. Perel 13:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not the originator of this page; I just fixed a link to it and cleaned up some text. Would one of you kind people place a notice on the Talk pages of the non-bot editors of this page? The prod/afd notice suggests that this is proper. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. I should have done that when I added the prod tag, and forgot. This page is the original editor's only contribution, so I did a welcome and added a prod/notability paragraph afterwards. Perel 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No deletion?

A quick Google search turns up a heck of a lot of hits for "courage trust", "courage uk", "jeremy marks", and combinations thereof. I found four news articles that seemed to come from reputable sources, including The Advocate and the newspaper for the United Church of Christ. I added them to the references.

I submit that this means the article should not be deleted. Would you agree?

I admit that I'm closer to an inclusionist than a deletionist. So I am also swayed by the fact that this group is discussed a lot on the 'net -- most of the Google hits were blogs, discussion boards, etc. I consider that sort of thing encyclopedic; you may not; and thus I took the four references solely from the more solid media. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 09:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I adjusted them to External links to differenciate from sources used in writing the article. Blogs and such are, in almost all cases, not considered reliable sources so your decision to leave them out was a good one. CovenantD 09:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. On the question of support for facts, this page (like most Wikipedia pages) needs much better sourcing.

But the current question of deletion hinges on notability. And I submit that notability can be proven by the amount of press this group has gotten, even if the contents of that press are not used in this article. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 10:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see that. It DOES need better sourcing, but this group does seem to be notable enough upon closer inspection. I'm in favor of removing the prod and leaving this with just an unsourced template unless anyone objects. Perel 16:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see it go to AFD so a larger group of editors can make the determination. CovenantD 19:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The two of you probably understand deletions better than I do. From reading the page Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, it looks to me as if the prod tag will generate an automatic deletion, whereas the AFD is a totally different process. Is this correct? If so, then we should remove the prod tag and submit this for AFD.

Of course, I plan to vote against deletion, but I have no objection to having this article listed, and if the consensus supports deletion then that's how it will be. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 02:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You've got it right. We'll leave it like this for now, and if anyone disagrees and wants to vote Delete, they can start the AFD process. Perel 13:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)