Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Couples for Christ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. John254 02:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Couples for Christ

Couples for Christ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Seemingly NN. A Google search brings up 877 hits, the vast majority of which seem to be CFC splinter sites. While the Google Test isn't the be-all end-all, it definitely reflects a lack of possible secondary sources. Since the article doesn't seem to be a copyvio, and is just this side of the CSD A7 line, I figured I'd bring it here for some form of discussion. Action Jackson IV 02:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment The three articles in the "see also" section should also be listed here for consideration. Shalom Hello 02:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The number of participants alone does not make this group notable, but I don't have any other unique feature to associate with them. Shalom Hello 02:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Exclude the "global mission foundation" from the search string and you've got 58,000 results. TheCoffee 12:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This seems to be the main root article for all other CFC articles (Youth, Singles and Kids). Dragonbite 15:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is in very bad shape though. --Howard the Duck 15:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, totally non-notable--Greatestrowerever 18:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I'm confused on how people are finding CFC non-notable. It's recognized by the Vatican, has a 25 year history, with nearly a million members spanning 160 countries. TheCoffee 22:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Seconding the above comment by The Coffee. Dragonbite 23:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - clarifying my seconding-the-motion above on comment by The Coffee; mine is definitely strong keep Dragonbite 03:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Merge this main article with the "see also" articles. Dragonbite 18:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - CFC's project Gawad Kalinga is endorsed by ex-Senator Kiko Pangilinan [1] and was also a feature in one of our top broadsheets [2]. CFC on its own was also featured in this broadsheet [3]. It also seems that our president recognize the group [4]. I wanted to add this info to the article but I believe the person fixing the Gawad Kalinga article will find these soon.--Lenticel (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. And guess what? Gawad Kalinga (one of the projects the CFC is sponsoring) is also producing a movie that is now being advertised in mainstream Philippine media. This organization has been around as far as I can remember, and in the Philippines, it's as notable as, say, El Shaddai. You can regard CFC in the same way as other lay Catholic movements such as Focolare and Opus Dei (although the Opus Dei is arguably on a different level). But I'd still push for a clean-up as the current article looks like it was written by the CFC's PRO. --- Tito Pao 02:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --Sky Harbor 11:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep although it is not a very nicely written article. Magalhães 10:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The information in the CFC article can be found in the book "Renewing the Face of the Earth" ISBN 978-971-93571-0-0. CFC is arguably the single most influential Catholic Charismatic community in all of Asia, and does actually have an active membership number of 1 million (give or take) worldwide, including all CFC Family and Social ministries. For the sake of information, let's not delete this article. 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC) ryanenage
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.