Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Vision for Men

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 due to the work done improving the article. ···

Christian Vision for Men

Christian Vision for Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was deproded, but concern still not addressed. I have been unable to locate significant

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As a UK Christian man I might support this organisation if I came across it (which I haven't), but I fully agree that there is a total lack of sources meeting
  WP:IRS. I found a Telegraph article and a pay-only Times article that refer to CVM, but they seem to be about the issue of men leaving church rather than the organisation itself. – Fayenatic (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. Two further articles have been added from The Baptist Times and Scripture Union. In response to User:Fayenatic london Christian Vision for Men would argue that they exist because of the problem of men leaving church in the UK as this is their primary focus. - DaveMedia (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)— DaveMedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The link that has been added to the Baptist Times just provides a passing reference for the organization. The link provided to Scripture Union is broken. DaveMedia, it would be helpful if you could locate some

reliable source independent third party coverage which focuses on the organization. Barring that, it seems the notability is just not there. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Although current notability is currently low CVmen in the UK has a growing presence in the Evangelical Christian scene and my belief is that its notability index so to speak is rising. I think back to the early days of Soul Survivor (charity) and how it has grown. Cosnahang (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a very promotional article, but if references existed to satisfy
  WP:ORG, the relevant notability standard, that problem could be fixed by editing to get rid of the promotional tone. The Baptist Times article is about their survey more than it is about the organization, but it provides some support for notability. The ref to Scripture Union is a dead link. The rest of the articles and references are to blogs which might not satisfy "independent and reliable sources," including a number of "partner" organizations or activites of the subject organization. Edison (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment - The link provided to Scripture Union is correct, but doesn't work when the page is saved ... the link has been added in text form and can be copied and pasted successfully. DaveMedia (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now corrected, error was misunderstanding of how links are constructed in Wikipedea Cosnahang (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. The best claim to notability I can find is a BBC News article talking about a gender divide in the church that mentions teh research done by CVN. There may also be a case with the number of churches affiliated to CVM. The big problem with this article, however, is that it's so heavily promotional that even if notability was established, you'd probably have to delete the whole lot and start again to meet
  WP:NPOV. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment - Please see the upgraded article as of 15 Nov 11. Cosnahang (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Weak Keep. Claim to notability still not great, but the work done on the article to make it more encyclopaedic and less promotional, together with the number of organisations affiliated to the group, is just about enough to rescue it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- As a para-church organisation with 2000 members churches, it ought to be significant. What surprises me is that the equivalent women's organisation, which I thought was more significant, should only have a redlink. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Both this organization and the bio of its head, Carl Beech, are simultaneously up for deletion, which gets my IDONTLIKEIT sensory glands tingling. Nearly 24,000 53,900 Google hits for the exact name of the organization plus the name "Beech," which would seem to constitute a big enough iceberg from which to carve a few reliable sources snowcones. Take, for instance, THIS PIECE from The Telegraph, entitled "Churches to lure men back into pews by showing World Cup matches," which constitutes substantial, independently published coverage of the organization. Carrite (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And HERE is a BBC piece entitled "Southport Conference Examines Role of Men in Church" documenting a June conference held by Christian Vision for men. This strikes me as the UK equivalent of the American fundamentalist group Promise Keepers. It is an encyclopedic topic, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2011 (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.