Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Call To Action

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. slakr\ talk / 09:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Call To Action

edit
A Call To Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no indication that this organization is notable. The best source I found is this Catholic Herald article which mostly serves as a platform for some bishop's position and does not cover the organization in any detail. Practically all of the current content is from the organization's own website, original research or personal opinion. Huon (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a one-page introductory description of a Catholic Reform Movement in the UK with over 1500 members, representatives and a core group in every Catholic diocese. It has met with Diocesan Bishops and Cardinal Nichols. Citations are given to articles in the Catholic Press and the main UK Catholic magazine, the Tablet, and there is also a quote from the Catholic book of Canon Law! Criticisms of lack of objectivity have been taken on board, and controversies are now referred to. Queries about why there is no Wikipedia page have been received by the organization, and that is one reason for the entry. There are many conservative Catholics who hate and libel A Call to Action. It would be absurd to delete this article, which has already obviously aroused interest as the history page shows, even though some of the response has clearly been malicious. I helped set up the page by using a freelancer, as I confess I am not experienced on Wikipedia. I am a member of the organization but not part of the national leadership team. Tomcapa1 (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete The cited sources are not sufficient to show significant, independent coverage. The citation to The Tablet is essentially a "Letter to the Editor" by one of the group's founders declaring their intentions. (Not independent.) The citations to the Independent Catholic News basically report on the group's meetings (again, not really significant coverage). The citation to the Vatican2Voice represents a justification for the group's activities, but is not about the group itself. The other citations are to the group's own website. All in all, nothing significant. Changed to "weak keep". See reasoning below. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete per WikiDan61. Incidentally, Tomcapa1, accusations of malice without supporting evidence (as shown in the above rebuttal and extensively in edit summaries in the page history) are not the best way to gain support on this site. --Richard Yin (talk) 06:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to listen to the BBC broadcast mentioned at the bottom of this discussion, so I'm going to withdraw my !vote for now. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment yes I apologise for accusations of malice to the previous request to delete poster, and have withdrawn them. The accusation remains true in the history in the case of one set of edits from one person who is a well known enemy of this organization, blogging against it everywhere, and I have indicated reasons for the claim of malice in the history eg references to a bishop who has resigned through a scandal but who has nothing to do with A Call to Action. The same editor has had to be banned from the national website for aggressive posts. I must also say that this organization has been in existence only since 2012--it seems rather excessive to expect a huge number of media references to it. I have cited several but you say they are not substantive enough. Well, it is hardly going to be in the Catholic Encyclopedia yet, but it has over 1500 members already, including many priests, and religious, has met with a variety of bishops and the Cardinal in an official capacity, and has hosted 3 large national conferences. Tomcapa1 (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the organization has not yet been in existence long enough to have a "huge number of media references", then it may be too soon for this organization to merit a Wikipedia article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have explained above why there is a reason for this organization to merit a Wikipedia article. It is also necessary in order to distinguish it from US Call to Action-- which does have a wiki entry. Note too that the ref to Vatican Voices referred to above is in fact a citation for Catholic Canon Law, which defines the right and obligation for all members of the Church to express their opinions, and this is the raison d' etre of A Call to Action. I really had tried to make this a brief introductory entry because people had asked about it not being on Wiki and to avoid confusion. I had not wished to make it a piece of theological polemic or to load such an entry with more than a few references. I have now added another press release from the Bishop of Portsmouth, not from A Call to Action, in the Catholic Herald, and I can add a few more articles in the national Catholic press if you wish. I rather hope you don't wish, as I don't believe they are necessary!Tomcapa1 (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomcapa1: You have given your rationale for why you believe this organization should merit a Wikipedia article, but your rationale is not in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Requests from your members for the organization to have a Wikipedia page do not mean that your organization merits a page. Your belief that this is an important organiztion is not a valid argument for retention. Your argument that this article is needed in order to differentiate the English group from the American group of the same name is also irrelevant: this name problem is ATCA's problem, and it is not up to Wikipedia to resolve it. And your belief (that evidence of significant coverage is unnecessary) is misguided; such evidence is very necessary in order to verify that this organization meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Also, the availability of neutral sources might actually make it easier to create an article that is free from partisan polemic. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coment The enquiry about an A Call to Action website did not come from a member, but precisely an enquirer. This movement is found all over the place in the UK Catholic Press and magazines. Please tell me how many more articles you would like me to cite. It is the subject of considerable controversy and discussion,, as you would know if you were familiar with that area. The Cardinal-Archbishop does not have official meetings with organisations of no significance. It is true that little of the commentary is neutral -- although I note the name Independent Catholic News speaks for itself. I would imagine that various religious sites have that problem-- indeed I have read somewhere on the guidelines the difficulty of finding neutral material on religious and political issues. I wonder how Professor Dawkins' views on religion are dispassionately assessed for example. Although unrelated as such to the American organization A Call to Action has an analogous status and as I have said that has a Wiki entry. Meanwhile I will access some more evidence. Tomcapa1 (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcapa1 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomcapa1: Since you've asked for a number of how many articles to cite, and since the article currently validly cites precisely zero significant independent articles (the one citation that looked like it might actually be something, in the Independent Catholic News is a broken link), let's start with two. WP:GNG stipulates that
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
General consensus has come to intepret this statement to mean that a subject should have been the topic of multiple instances of significant coverage. So, two valid article citations would be a good start. And you don't have to preface every comment you make here with the word "Keep". You've already made that point. If you wish to truly follow the AFD norm, preface your further comments with the word "Comment" as I have been doing. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1) This is an article about an organisation with 1,500 members in a country with a Catholic population of 5 million. The organisation would, therefore, represent only 0.03% of this.
2) Discussion as to whether this should be deleted or not should be kept strictly within Wikipedia's notability guidelines and not emotions about whether one feels passionately about the organisation or otherwise. I feel passionately about my high school tiddly-winks group, but it is hardly notable.
3) I have to agree with Richard Yin regarding accusations of maliciousness. I have done some Googling and it does seem that this organisation/group has a tendency to be heavy-handed with critics. Such an attitude has no place on Wikipedia.
4) That a Cardinal has met with members of the organisation, does not equate to notability. Bishops meet with people all the time. It is part and parcel of their work.
5) The article, as stands, is poorly written, a subject of various edit wars, and, as mentioned above by other users, poorly referenced. The article is less encyclopaedic and rather an advert for the organisation. None of these, of course, are reasons for deletion, but it must be noted that there are significant issues with the article as it stands.
6) As I have mentioned to the main contributor before, I believe that there is a conflict of interest which prevents objectivity in some situations.
Personally, I feel the page would follow the notability guidelines more, if it had a significantly larger membership that was more representative of the overall population. Mangwanani (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a very big distinction between the nominal number of RCs in the UK, and the number of active Catholics. Within that number are those shown in surveys such as those published in the Tablet (but not of Tablet readers) of Catholic disagreement with public statements of supposed Catholic positions, and this represents at least 50 or 60% of the numbers. In other words each active member of A Call to Action knows many others who support them and in turn therefore represents a large body of opinion within the church. However, I cannot prove this, and I certainly cannot provide a variety of neutral sources for you to verfify-- although I refer you again to Wiki guidelines on controversial religious opinion which explain the impossibility of doing this. I can certainly refer to other articles in the press, but these will indeed be on one side or the other. On the matter of Bishops, no the Cardinal does not meet with insignificant groups, and the Bishop of Portsmouth is the author of the article I have just added about the meeting with A Call to Action, so he obviously regarded it as important enough to issue a press release to the Catholic Herald. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcapa1 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, criteria for deletion according to Wikipedia's guidelines must be objectively followed and notability also judged according to these same guidelines. I have met most of the bishops in England and both cardinals, that does not justify me having my own article. If you can argue for the article to stay within Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then there would be a much more solid foundation. I also just wish to say that I have no opinion either way as to whether the article should be kept or deleted - I see arguments for both sides - but I do believe there are serious, material issues with the article that need addressing, as I believe that as it stands, it falls under several criteria for deletion and not just on notability grounds. Mangwanani (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am ambivalent about the future of the ACTA article. Albeit a small group, ACTA's presence within the Catholic Church in England and Wales nonetheless deserves objective coverage. However, as a contributor who does not toe the ACTA line, I have been denounced as a 'known enemy' and have been banned from an ACTA forum as a punishment. In the circumstances I will no longer contribute to the ACTA article. HayesBob (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reformatted the above text for readability. If anyone feels I shouldn't have done it, feel free to revert; if you feel I grouped the comments wrong, feel free to modify. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment: I am rather sorry that Bob Hayes has been banned from the ACTA website, and it was nothing to do with me or this Wikipedia article. I appreciate what appears to be his support for not deleting this article, which is very charitable of him. I do understand the previous arguments for deletion, and I also apologise for my inexperience in formatting. Following the advice given I have now added references from the conservative national Catholic paper the Catholic Herald that calls the organization 'booming' and interviews Jean Riordan the National Chair at some length and with some objectivity about the organization. I also added a BBC national News item on the subject which also evidences a debate on BBC 4s famous national Today programme between Ms Riordan as representative of A Call to Action and the Secretary to the English and Welsh bishops.Tomcapa1 (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment has been moved from the top of the page to the bottom to maintain proper chronological sequencing.

  • Delete I believe this article should be deleted for several reasons. I don't believe that the subject meets Wikipedia standards for notability. Its membership numbers are far too small, especially as a proportion of Catholics in the UK. I also don't believe it, as written, is encyclopaedic. It reads as a publicity piece for the organisation. This is evidenced by the comments from some of its authors below who have confirmed that the reason it exists is as a form of promoting the organisation. It would also appear that those editors who have written the article have done so in some cases to "settle scores". This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Sue De Nimes (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment has been moved from the top of the page to the bottom to maintain proper chronological sequencing.

  • Keep
1) This article does need improvement, especially by putting it into a more neutral mode, and adding more established external references, of which there are a good number I find by searching, and some references to related structures and organizations described in Wikipedia. I think the original article was composed by people not sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia's norms, but @Tomcapa1: has shown readiness to learn about these and work to bring the article into line, perhaps with help from HayesBob. Statements made in the article also need more support in some cases. There are references to A Call To Action on other established Wikipedia pages.
2) I cannot agree with User:Sue de Nimes that an organization which has been referred to on mainstream media in the UK a number of times is simply not notable. Numbers of members of a group like this is not in itself a good test of significance in an entity like the Roman Catholic Church - a significant committee or religious order may not have large membership, but will still be worthy of note by reason of its function in the organization of the church.
3)WikiDan61 mentions the founding letter in The_Tablet. This was clearly of importance as the cause of several hundred Catholics converging on London to create A Call To Action, but this letter is but one among many references which exist, and these should perhaps be added to the article where relevant. User:Richard_Yin has not really given a Wikipedia-relevant reason for the article to be deleted I believe.
4) Of the criteria listed by User:Huon in requesting Deletion of A Call To Action, the first two are amenable to an improvement process for the article. The entity described in A Call To Action does meet the notability standards of Wikipedia, as mentioned in established external sources and Wikipedia itself. The article can be improved to show this, answering User:Huon's first two criticisms.
5) A Call To Action is not an orphan as in User:Huon's request: it has references under Association of Catholic Priests as well as the US organization Call to Action which is entirely distinct.
6) The style of the article should be given a chance to improve.

Barquwq (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Barquwq: Your chief comment of significance (i.e. one that addresses a policy issue under which this article should be deleted) is the significance of the letter in The Tablet. But this source cannot be considered as "significant independent coverage" (as required by WP:GNG), because it is not independent. Anyone can write a letter to the editor of a publication (major or minor) and have it published; this does not make that person or entity writing the letter notable. If the article is retained, then it can be improved; that is a matter for a different discussion. The only point of interest here is whether there is sufficient independent reliable information in available sources from which to construct a meaningful article, and I have not yet seen any evidence of that. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WikiDan61:Please note evidence of notability is now clearly established by reference to debate on BBC Radio 4 Today programme, the premier radio news outlet. between Chair of A Call to Action and the secretary to the English bishops-- this hit the national news as the footnote reference shows. There is also the new added reference to the interview in the national Catholic Herald with the Chair entitled 'Booming Movement'Tomcapa1 (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Tomcapa1 (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not a news story about A Call To Action. It is a news story about a larger issue of openness of the Catholic Church in England and Wales regarding issues of sexual ethics. A representative of A Call To Action was interviewed on the subject, but that does not make this a significant source about the organization. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This, however, is a significant piece of journalism about the organisation published in the Catholic Herald, and qualifies as the kind of coverage needed. Changing my vote to Weak keep. However, if the article is kept, vigiliance will be required to keep it from becoming a battleground. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hopelessly promotion. Should best be started over. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @ ">[[User:WikiDan61|WikiDan61] Thank you, but surely the fact that the Chair of A Call to Action was chosen to debate this subject on national news programme is itself evidence of notability too Tomcapa1 (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not necessarily. The notability issue is a tricky one at Wikipedia. We're not trying to run a popularity contest. Rather, the notability requirement serves to assure the availability of reliable sources from which to write a verifiable article. The inclusion of Riordan in this national radio programme tells us that BBC looks to her as a source of input, but it tells us nothing at all about the organisation. We do not get any more verifiable information about the organisation from this source. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Am now rewriting whole entry in consultation with someone who will help me make it more objective and improve expression and formatting. Tomcapa1 (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (negotiate) @ 15:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have edited again to try to make more objective. Am also in consultation about improving formatting. I note that Latim Mass Society of England and Wales has a Wiki article, and gives no figures for membership there. I feel that Mangwanani (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC) in his comments on the numbers involved is not really in touch with the realities of UK Catholicism eg in Portsmouth Diocese there were only 600 respondents to the Synod on the Family, yet A Call to Action has over 100 members in this diocese.Tomcapa1 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a Catholic in the UK with close links to many bishops, both in the UK an in Rome, I am very in touch with the realities of UK Catholicism. 600 respondents represents a vastly greater number than that as each of those respondents will have spouses and children of their own so that number of 600 is only a) the people who took the survey in the first place and b) of the people who took the survey, a fraction of the people they in turn represent. However, none of this has anything to do with Wikipedia's policies on notability and it is those guidelines we must follow. I have to look at this objectively with those guidelines at hand. I do get the impression that ACTA thinks itself far more influential and far more important than it actually is. I have seen several photos from ACTA gatherings and I notice that the average age of those present is 50+, if not 60+. That does rather ignore a huge percentage of the Catholic populace. Moreover, most young Catholics are far more traditionally minded than any ACTA member and probably goes a long way to suggest why the Latin Mass Society and Juventutem are far more successful and far more notable than ACTA. For an organisation that promotes "dialogue" yet silences critics on their own forum and censors critical viewpoints from a Wikipedia page - which is meant to be unbiased - one has to wonder what exactly is going on here. However, this is not a discussion to have on Wikipedia, and especially not on this page, which must focus on the actual renown of ACTA, and I have to say that renown is not great. )
""'Comment I note again that Mangwanani (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC) has not responded to my points: ATTA's widespread coverage in the national Catholic press, entries on BBC news and reflections of this booming new movement in the conservative Catholic Herald. Just as the respondents to the Synod survey represent others as is said, so does ACTA, as the survey results itself show-- broadly a large group in favour of reform. What is seen as the age profile of photos of ACTA conferences is irrelevant, and I have to say, ageist. The claim that most young Catholics are conservative is totally unevidenced and counter-intuitive, and does not seem objective and neutral at all in this context. Nor is it appropriate or for there to be a defence of an individual asked to leave the ACTA website: after a considerable number of complaints that he posted all the time in a way that some people found offensive and clearly did not support the mission statement that members are supposed to agree with. Tomcapa1 (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But is this entry by Mangwanani (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC) -- I assumed so, but it isn't signed is it? It appeared to be an answer to what I sent him but if I am wrong I apologise Tomcapa1 (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was signed until Tomcapa1 messed up the formatting and deleted my signature from my comment. @Tomcapa1, please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's editing 'language'. I have addressed the points raised by Tomcapa, namely: there has been some national coverage on the group. I would not go so far as to call this widespread. Claims that young Catholics are more traditionally oriented is not unevidenced: see here, here and here for a few citations. This is, however, not the point I am trying to make. The point I am trying to make is that ACTA is a small organisation and has little information available that is independently verifiable. As I have now said on numerous occasions this must be looked at strictly and objectively within the Wikipedia guidelines of verifiability, notability and neutrality. @Tomcapa1, please read these pages. I have linked them here, for ease of access. As the article currently stands, it does not meet these requirements and is quite close to the deletion policy. Mangwanani (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAs noted there is no way that evidence of notability can be denied to a national organization whose Chair is invited to debate the Secretary of the English bishops on the Today programme and which is referred to so frequently in the national Catholic Press, both favourably and unfavourably. Tomcapa1 (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Tom, it has already been pointed out to you that you need to cite sources demonstrating the notability of this organisation. That you are an agent of the organisation also means that any attempt to write from a position of neutrality is going to be difficult. I am still of the belief this page should be deleted, however if it is to be kept it shouldn't be written by anyone connected to Call to Action. Sue De Nimes (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment without wishing to be rude it does not appear that the last comments have been by people who have read the changes or the talk page. However there is still work to do on the formatting Tomcapa1 (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tomcapa1 has an obvious conflict of interest and would best stay away from editing on this subject.Charles (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was also my concern when the article was created. I raised this issue with him on his talk page. Mangwanani (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It surprises me to read here that a number of improvements have been made to the article, because only having read its current incarnation it is (still) promotional in tone and insufficiently supported by significant third-party references. The alleged "widespread coverage in the national Catholic press" is not shown by the references provided, and the BBC coverage doesn't amount to more than fifteen minutes of fame. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some sources are not about ACTA itself, the others are in Catholic newsletters (perhaps a large niche, but a niche all the same). There is only one in mainstream news, and that one does not mention the organization. (And the "blogspot" entry is ... just another blog.) The persons arguing for the organization's importance based on numbers of members, etc., seem to misunderstand what is required for an entry in WP. LaMona (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @(talk) 22:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC) I am rather in despair about this kind of comment. The article you mention about the interview with the Chair of Acta on BBC news does mention Acta, and that is why Ms Riordan the Chair was interviewed on the TOday programme-- it is very clear: did you not read it? Tomcapa1 (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not despair: I re-read it and found the mention (it is a single sentence). That does not change my !vote, however. Sorry. LaMona (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most sources seem to be primary from the group itself, no sign of notability outside of those with vested interest in the subject. Sadfatandalone (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Comment @Mangwanani (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2014 Well, I have to say I do not agree with your view that this is not a neutral article now, and that I have a conflict of interest. I am not an 'agent of A Call to Action'- but a member. Why would someone neither for it or against it write on it anyway, but I have done all I can to follow the guidelines. There is now clear evidence of notability-- BBC, Catholic papers, The Times etc.-- and I would like examples from the article of bias. You did refer to Juventutem, which has a Wiki article. Yet it is a much smaller organization than A Call to Action and the article is written by an agent of the organization. Tomcapa1 (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LaMona (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)It is very clear that the whole seoond half of the news is about A Call to Action-- that is why the Chair of the Organisation is being interviewed.Tomcapa1 (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Juventutem is not comparable to ACTA. It is represented in over twenty countries and is active in numerous cities in each of those countries. It has international significance, which ACTA - so far - is unable to demonstrate. Mangwanani (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Too small, a group, within a group. Overly promotional. Too many unencyclopedic terms, indicating an agenda. Phrases like 'polite, but skeptical', 'amusing parody' - too many adjective describing people and media, not objective at all. Pjposullivan (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Call_To_Action&oldid=1137531041"