Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People Can Change

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 Some of the sources such as the Deseret article and the NYT references do constitute independent reliable sources but it is not that they are non-trivial enough to satisfy WP:ORG. If there were a few more calls for deletion I would be more comfortable closing this as delete for now but as it stands below there does not appear to be anything resembling a consensus. I recommend that a merge may make sense, possible to the main page about the Ex-gay movement. JoshuaZ 01:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Follow-up point so it is very clear: references by others in the Ex-gay movement do not constitute independent, reliable sources. JoshuaZ 01:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People Can Change

People Can Change (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was originally nominated for speedy deletion per A7, a non-notable group. The author contested the nom, and provided some references on the article's talk page. I changed the nom to {{prod}}, to allow the author some time to improve the article by asserting the notability. The author expanded the article, and removed the {{prod}} tag, with the edit summary "removed warning since I have improved this article as outlined in talk page." I'm moving the discussion to AFD, since the article is now a contested prod, and to assess whether the author has indeed established the notability of the organisation sufficiently. Procedural listing, no opinion. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:SPAM, the organization is non-notable, references are all in-universe (Note: Deseret News is owned by the Mormon Church, which always defined homosexuality as evil, though now they say homosexuals can get into their heaven if and ONLY if they remain celibate for life, for which they are "rewarded" with becoming heterosexual in heaven - that is a VERY strongly non-neutral viewpoint and the newspaper coverage just reflects that), and as WP:SOAP. I have no problem with valid articles that discuss organizations that promote a controversial viewpoint, but the articles must meet wikipedia requirements for validity, which this one fails across the board. If article is changed in timely manner to meet these (including showing non-soapbox coverage elsewhere), I would reconsider my vote. If it stays, should be noted if they take in people under 18, which would be not by will but by parents' will. --Fitzhugh 19:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The Deseret News is a secular paper with the second highest distribution in Utah. It has credibility in its field regardless of its ownership. (I am not saying whether or not it is actually owned by the LDS church; I don't know.) Furthermore, your attacks on the LDS church are not only irrelevant, but also false. The LDS Church does not currently, nor has it ever held that point of view. Also, they do not take in people under 18. Joshuajohanson 21:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - on the grounds that the organisation is non-notable. The majority of the references just point at the website directly related to the subject. Addi

tionally the article appears to be more interested in soapboxing and self-advertisement than being informative and encyclopaedic. There also seems to be an underlying attempt at pushing a homophobic agenda. ---- WebHamster 12:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:SPAM and failing WP:ORG. No evidence of substantial coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only reliable source that discusses this group online support group is a newspaper article that mentions them in only two paragraphs. Fireplace 12:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I count three paragraphs with direct reference.

• Paragraph 4 - "he started People Can Change"
• Paragraph 9 "Our philosophy is if the core needs are met in non-sexual ways, male bonding among other things, the desire for the sexual attraction diminishes" (Wyler representing People Can Change's philosophy)
• Paragraph 10 "60 percent of those who have gone through his weekend seminars."

I also think the other paragraphs (about Wyler's transformation and medical disagreements) are very much about PCC.Joshuajohanson 22:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)!

• Keep. Gosh, I think we need to be really careful that our own POV's aren't showing here, folks. "Pushing a homophobic agenda" is a strong accusation, WebHamster. I read the article. It is definitely a smaller organization, but WP:ORG is okay with that if there are RS's. WP:SPAM doesn't apply here either - it documents both the creation of the organization as well as criticisms of their impossibly controversial reason for being, but at least the article is attempting to be neutral. I don't see any attempt at a "homophobic agenda" in the article, or in the actual organization's website, for that matter. They seem to only want to "help" those that "want help". That doesn't mean "homophobic" any more than me saying I want "help" for anything else I don't like about myself. "Homophobic" groups definitely exist and should be run into the ground, but I don't see this group carrying around "God hates Fags" banners. (Please excuse my language, used only for emphasis here.) The criticisms and missions of the organization are in the article, and from what I can tell, use reliable sources. I say, clean up the sources, removing the numerous "people can change" dotcom sources into a single "external link" www.peoplecanchange.com. The others: DesertNews is reliable/independent; gives both sides of argument and documents notability of PCC. LifeSite.net seems neutral, independent also. BoxTurtleBulletin, ironically, seems very POV, is completely against this organization, but is included here - IMO as an effort to show NPOV. Again, PCC is a small organization, there aren't a lot of GHits. But WP:ORG says that doesn't necessarily mean NN. We don't want an encyclopedia that only has large, commercial organizations, do we? Keeper | 76 17:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Response I'm open to changing my vote if the article is modified to pass WP:ORG, but as it stands, it doesn't. Responding to your points about the sources: DesertNews mentions the organization only in passing, LifeSite.net does not seem to have any "established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight" (see WP:RS), BoxTurtleBulletin is a blog (see [[WP:RS]), and PeopleCanChange.com cannot as a self-published source establish notability (see WP:SELFPUB). A google news search reveals a couple more in-passing mentions of the group, but nothing along the lines of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:N). Fireplace 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Response. I'm also open to changing my vote, based solely on RS. I agree it needs more reliable third party sources, but I think the effort is there and this deletion needs to be postponed a week or two. My vote, for now, is to let it breathe a while, give the significant contribs a chance to flush out and flesh out the notes, maybe tag it with ^{[citation needed]}? If nothing new and significant changes/improves, renominate. It isn't SPAM, it's a (small but real) ORG, just needs 3rd party sources. Keeper | 76 19:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Undecided I suspect they are notable, but they have only in-universe sources. One real reference fro ma reliable source of some note would go a long way to establishing this. DGG (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Will this article on the Christian News Wire work?[1] It is completely about People Can Change, and is not within the ex-gay universe. I don't know which ones are the most reliable, but it is also covered by PHX News,[2] Evangelical News[3] and Virtue Online[4]. The Life Site article was originally printed in the Marketwire in July 2003, but now can only be found at FindArticle.com.[5] I used Life Site for easy access. The article was reprinted at Life Site, as well as CatholicCitizens.org[6]. All of these sources are outside the ex-gay universe.

I fail to see the problem with the Deseret Morning News article. It is more than a "passing mention". The article talks about the founder, discusses the upcoming Journey into Manhood weekend in Utah, which is one of the major productions put on by People Can Change, talks about the APA objections, goes back to talking about the Journey into Manhood weekend, gives Wyler's figures that 60 percent of the participants have seen some change, and then challenges those results. The whole article is about People Can Change, even though the words "People Can Change" are only used once and it is latter referred to as "the weekend". So to summarize, People Can Change has had significant coverage in Marketwire[7], Deseret News[8], and Christian Newswire[9], as well as substantial coverage within the ex-gay universe.Joshuajohanson 20:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Other than the Deseret Morning News article, all the links you point to are merely reprintings of a press release sent out by People Can Change. Those sites do not have an "established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight" (WP:RS). Fireplace 20:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You say these are reprintings of press releases. Where do you get that idea? Typically, press releases are marked as such and don't have interviews with the creators as the Marketwire source does.Joshuajohanson 21:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Upon further review of the Desert News article, Joshua Johanson's assertion is correct, the article is independent of the organization, is mostly about the organization (both pro and con are discussed). Small organizations like this one won't have a ton of stuff, but there is no standing rule that says "one" independent, reliable source isn't enough. Keep. --Keeper | 76 21:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally,as long as we are quoting policy: " 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." (singular). (Taken from Wikipedia:Verifiability) The RS guideline also states that it is perfectly acceptable to use "less reliable" sources in articles about themselves, so the peoplecanchange.com sources would seem appropriate in an article called People Can Change, don't you think? IMO, of course. Keeper | 76 21:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding your second point, WP:ORG specifically excludes "press releases... and other works where the... group talks about itself—whether published by the... group itself, or re-printed by other people" as reliable sources that can be used to establish notability.
• Regarding your first point, my reading of the Deseret News Article has it being mostly about Glenn Wyler, Russ Gorringe, about ex-gays and reparative therapy in general, and only incidentally about the two ex-gay groups it mentions, People Can Change and Evergreen. Whether this sole mention counts as "substantial coverage" from reliable sources (the WP:ORG requirement) is debatable, but I think it fails. Fireplace 21:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• We may have to agree to disagree here, fireplace, because I think we are viewing the same article (Desert News) two different ways. I read it as being started and finished with a two-sided, descriptive view of the organization, and it's cited in this article as such. I will say, however, that I do agree with your first point (which responds to my second point :-); and I'll add that I wasn't attempting to claim that the PCC "self-released" articles assert notability. Far from it. I was only attempting to claim that they were acceptable to exist on a page about itself, as long as other WP:RS's were present. The contention really is over the outside sources. (Desert News, et al). Previously, I stated that we really just need to slow down the AfD to allow time for outside reliable sources to be added (or not added), and I'll personally add that because of the contentiousness of the issue and of the organization, due diligence should absolutely be taken here by all editors/voters, to be sure to avoid showing our our POV's. (myself included) Keeper | 76 21:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable exgaycruft that doesn't exist outside the world of ex-gayness and therefore does not belong here. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• delete From WP:N "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ... "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources..." I don't see significant coverage in secondary sources. Compare the sources in this article with those in Richard A. Cohen, he is demonstrably notable, whereas this organization is not. Pete.Hurd 18:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Some editors are confusing the content about PCC with their opinions about what PCC claims to do. This is evidenced by the fact that someone tried to introduce a commentary about Reparative Therapy on the PCC page. That would be like introducing anti-abortion stats on the Planned Parenthood page. The PCC page is not about Reparative Therapy. It is about PCC. The organization is notable as a non-profit as it is has been around for seven years and effected hundreds of men internationally. Also, the in-universe argument is being misapplied. Whether The Desert News is affiliated with the Mormon church is absolutely irrelevant unless one can demonstrate the reporting of the DN is skewed. Otherwise, suggesting that an affiliation is relevant is merely an ad hominem attack. What is material is the credibility of the DN as it is reporting on this matter. In other words, does it fairly represent PCC? Remember, the article is not talking about the efficacy of Reparative Therapy. So far, I have not seen any solid ground from which to doubt the facts the DN reports. (Note, The Christian Science Monitor is strongly affiliated with the Church of Christian Science—and it is at least as credible as, say, the NYT.) I also need to suggest that the vote of anyone who has tried to apply an “anti-gay” argument in this discussion should be discounted. That is not the issue here. The subject matter is PCC, not reparative therapy. To suggest that the inclusion of an article on the PCC amounts to supporting an anti-gay agenda is like saying the inclusion of the article on Planned Parenthood supports the pro-choice agenda.LCP 18:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, If you delete this page, you will also have to delete Jerusalem Open House and every other page like it listed on List of gay-rights organizations and who knows what else. Many of the refs on List of gay-rights organizations would also have to go. And that would be a shame. If people seriously question the objectivity of the info presented here about PCC, perhaps a Refimprove tag is the most appropriate solution.LCP 19:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't know if anyone has actually noticed, amidst all the rhetoric on both sides, but the article itself doesn't actually assert notability. The article, the references, the discussion in here all just point to the fact that it exists, not that it's actually notable. And from what I can tell no-one is saying that it doesn't exist, so where does that leave us? Currently someone could quite legitimately place a speedy tag on it (discounting of course that it's currently in AfD). ---- WebHamster 20:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Wow, I was gone for awhile, and I was surprised how much changed. For some reason, the source from the Christian Newswire and the 2003 NARTH Conference on Homosexuality: Current Trends in Research and Therapy were removed, the first one with reason of being self-published, though the Christian Newswire is clearly independent. Also the authorship of the Marketwire report was changed to People Can Change. It seems like someone is trying to sway votes by removing third party sources and falsifying other information. To me, that represents a new low in the discussion. I have also since added an interview with Warren Olney on KCRW's show To the Point and a New York Times article (pay special attention to the second audio clip included with the story). With substantial coverage by the New York Times, KCRW, Marketwire, Deseret News, NARTH and the Christian Newswire, I think this passes WP:ORG. Joshuajohanson 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The name of the organisation simply having a passing mention in a 1.5 line paragraph in the NY Times article is hardly "non-trivial" or "substantial". And the QT movie of the interview is ostensibly the same storyline. The NARTH article is an "in universe" publication so can hardly be deemed independent, let alone classed as a reliable source. All the others have already been discussed. Yet again all these references do is demonstrate existence, mostly with a passing reference, they don't demonstrate notability. Your batting average is not good I'd say. ---- WebHamster 21:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confusing your ideas. WP:Notability: "Notable means 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice'. It is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance'." "As of September 2007, NYTimes.com had 13 million unique visitors per month." I’d say the mention in the NYT means that PCC has “attracted notice.” Also, I can not find in WP rules where “in universe” enters as a critique of an article. Can you please point me in the correct direction? And although I understand the term in a general sense, I don’t see how you intend to apply it or how your application of the idea responds to my critique above. I would be grateful for an explication.LCP 22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is much more than a passing mention. Yes, the 1.5 line paragraph is the only one with the name People Can Change, but the two paragraphs after that refer to it as "the weekend" for a total of three. It is more than a trivial mention, because the whole article is about similar programs. The article centers on Larsen's experience, and his time in People Can Change can hardly be called a trivial part. The audio portion has the same story line, but goes into much further depth about the weekend. I don't see how you can say it has trivial coverage in the audio portion, which is part of the article. I know we are discussing (we're not done) the other articles, but 2 people voted on this without seeing those other sources. Besides, we never reached a conclusion. Also, you didn't mention anything about KCRW. That was substantial coverage, much more than 3 paragraphs worth. What do you think of that? If you still don't believe that was substantial coverage, (which I still don't understand), consider this from WP:ORG "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." So even if you turn three paragraphs into non-substantial, it really doesn't matter because simply having multiple independent sources have been used to establish notability. Joshuajohanson 22:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The NYT article is not about PCC, it's about the experiences of someone else. The PCC element is incidental and is mentioned in passing. The KCRW article, again, isn't an article per se, it's reference to the fact that Richard Wyler was present at an on-air debate. Once again it's not about PCC. Let's face it "gay curing" is a small pot to choose from so it's not surprising he got asked to appear. It demonstrates paucity of people from the "other side of the argument" rather than notability. All these references do is establish existence, not notability. Even secondary sources have to say something non-trivial. Nothing you have come up with has established notability. All they've done is establish existence and demonstrate that not very many people believe in curing gay guys of their "affliction" so there's going to be very few people to mention when the subject comes up. That's not notability, that's just lack of choice in a small market. ---- WebHamster 23:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The points you raise speak more loudly for inclusion than exclusion. Even though you attempt to devalue the mention of the PCC in the NYT, you can't get around the fact that the PCC has “attracted the notice” of the NYT. By definition, that means it meets WP:Notability requirements. Also, your statement, “lack of choice in a small market”, would make the mention of PCC in the NYT even more notable. It demonstrates that in “a small market”, PCC is apparently one of the relatively big players.LCP 23:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I also want to note that the first objection to the inclusion of PCC was that there were no secondary sources referring to it. Now that it has a very notable secondary source that speaks of it at relative length, the argument has shifted in an attempt to discredit the secondary source.LCP 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually no. They speak more towards a general article of curing homosexuality having a small paragraph about PCC. I'm the only single, straight, white guy, living on my block. That doesn't make me notable, it just makes me the only single, straight, white guy, living on my block. "Very notable secondary source"? "Relative length"? Now which one would that be? It's not about discrediting any sources, it's about discussing any sources cited actually achieving what it is they are meant to do. If all they achieve is confirmation of the group's existence then they are somewhat superfluous. The citations are there for all to read and interpret in their own way. My interpretation is that none of them demonstrate anything more than the fact that PCC is a very small goldfish in a very small bowl. ---- WebHamster 23:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You state, “citations are there for all to read and interpret in their own way”. This seems to imply that subjective interpretation is the best we can do. However, I don’t think we’re quite there. Here’s why:

• You draw a distinction between “merely existing” and “attracting notice,” and I don’t see warrant for that distinction in WP rules.
• You haven’t said a word about "Notable means 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice'. It is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance'".
• You have not spoken in defense of your original use of “in universe”. This pertains the article in the Desert News.

Can you please address these issues? Also, I am not sure the analogy works. The problem is that yours is just one block among many others just like it in the city. What if your block were the only block in the city in which all of the residents had ex-ray vision--except you? You would then be very notable. Or more to the point, what if everyone in the city embraced homosexuality and you were the one person who rejected it and, because of this, you were given press in the NYT? I think that would make you quite notable.

I am afraid that if we apply your reasoning universally, we would have to delete many, many articles from Wikipedia, both those I mention above as well as articles such as the one on the Metropolitan Community Church--a group of negligible importance relative to even just Anglicanism. Relative to Christendom, it is just one very, very, very small pro-gay denomination in a Christendom in which 99% of all Christians (over 2 billion) belong to denominations that do not approbate homosexuality.LCP 00:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

When you mentioned “in universe” I did mistake your meaning. I thought you intended to apply it more broadly--as several other editors attempt to do.

I quoted “attract notice” directly from WP:Notability. I did not say it was the only criteria. I did imply that it is a sufficient criteria. You have not demonstrated otherwise (or perhaps I failed to notice). WP:Notability does not say, “a feature needs to attract notice in the form of an article in a major publication devoted only to itself. Nor are we talking about an attractive woman on passing on the street. Or did you not notice? I am not saying that PCC should be included because a thought of it happened to flitter across someone’s consciousness. You might “personally” “put ‘noteworthy’ in a class of its own”, but we are not playing by WebHamster rules. We are playing by Wikipedia rules—which I have referenced and you have not. Or did you fail to notice?

Actually, I tried to accept your analogy before I found it wanting. So when you say, “You just don't want it to”, I don’t know what to say back but “Neener-neener-neener, did so want it to work. I’m tellin’ mom!”

WP:Notability doesn’t say how much attention the subject of a feature needs to attract or how notable it needs to be. However, being spoken of in an article in the NY Times, even though not the subject of an article, is arguably sufficiently notable. And then there is the article in the Desert News. Strange isn’t it, how the NY Times hasn’t written an article that mentions, even in passing, your feelings towards very pretty blond girls?LCP 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we’ve pretty much teased out both sides ad nausiam. There is only one thing I want to add to clarify something about which I was not clear. The reason I said, “I am afraid that if we apply your reasoning universally, we would have to delete many, many articles from Wikipedia,” was to warrant my assertion that you are applying WP guidelines in a way that is not precedented. My point is that WP generally takes a less strict interpretation of notability than you have been proposing here. I was not trying to argue tu quoque. Having said that, I think I am done. I’ve put in my vote, and I’ll leave it to the admins (or to whomever makes the determination) to keep or delete the article. Thanks for a good argument. I enjoyed it. Especially the bit where I got to ask you why there was no article about you in the Times. I enjoyed your quip about my mom too.LCP 02:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am still on the KCRW thing. Did you listen to the debate, or just read the summary? PCC played a large portion in the debate. He goes into the history, the philosophy, the survey they did, who they've helped, as well as received criticism from Peterson Toscano about only having guys. It really goes in depth. Also the audio portion of the NY Times article was the most substantial part, and it contained a whole heck of a lot more on PCC than just what it is and what it stands for.Joshuajohanson 02:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Listening to the debate was irrelevant from a WP standpoint. After all, the larger the portion of the debate PCC took then the less independent the reference becomes. A debate is not what would be considered a reliable source as it's a discussion, it's not a venue for verified facts. Likewise with the NYT article. If Olsen is going on at length about PCC then it's not independent. He was a "patient" of theirs, now if it's the independent NYT staff going in-depth about PCC then that would be an independent narrative. So is it NYT or Olsen who waxes lyrical about PCC? Now I'm not saying this is the case merely pointing out the possibility, but what if Olsen was offered an incentive to go to the NYT with the story? This is why what he says can never be considered to be independent. ---- WebHamster 02:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

How is Warren Olney and Peterson Toscano talking about People Can Change make it less independent? I could see if Wyler went on about it, and Olney kept trying to get him back on subject, then that would be less reliable, but Wyler was invited specifically to talk about People Can Change, and he did, and so did everyone else on the broadcast. I'm not saying what Wyler said was a fact, but notable enough for him to get called in specifically to talk about it. Same with the NYT article, if Olsen didn't go to PCC, he wouldn't have gone to therapy either and it would have made for a very boring article and even more boring audio clip. Joshuajohanson 02:58, 4 October 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.