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.  Sandstein  06:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Rose and a Prayer

[edit]
A Rose and a Prayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage in reliable sources. None of the cited sources meet RS criteria for notability, and Google News/Books doesn't bring anything up. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you do, please keep in mind WP:ORG, and remember that coverage must be significant in order to establish notability. It would be great if you could find some significant coverage. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22A+Rose+and+a+Prayer%22. - Haymaker (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I started with, but unless one of the paywalled articles is a hidden gold mine of significant coverage or otherwise indicates that the group is important, I don't think that cuts it. "Someone from ARAAP commented on this event" doesn't satisfy WP:ORG. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They do, here are a few of the free google abstracts;
"The removal of some of the bad provisions from the bill is credited to a newly created grassroots pro-life group called A Rose and a Prayer. ..." - January 19, 2006
"One opposition group, A Rose and a Prayer, which fought SB 80, will likely see its elation dissipate. Rep. Deborah Hudson, the bill's sponsor, ..." - January 21, 2006
"A Rose and a Prayer organizers are not deterred. "Maybe if there's an organization on the other side, we can come together and debate this issue," said ... " - March 5, 2007
"Members of Stem Cell Go are expected to testify on both bills, as are supporters of A Rose and a Prayer, which opposes embryonic stem cell research and ..." - March 21, 2007
"Representatives of A Rose and a Prayer have argued that they are not necessarily against the in vitro process per se (all the while creating legislation ..." - March 29, 2007
"But Thursday's debate featured no dramatic touches, such as the roses that the group A Rose and a Prayer delivered to House members last year in their quest ..." - March 30, 2007
"DOVER -- It worked before and members of A Rose and a Prayer are hoping that 2500 roses will help turn away a bill that would regulate embryonic stem cell ..." - April 25, 2007
I'll look into finding a way to gain free access to these articles for all readers. - Haymaker (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, like I said, passing mentions that don't satisfy WP:ORG. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are explicit statements in RS's of that organization's ability to influence legislation and state-wide politics over several years. If you really think that explicit statements in reliable sources aren't enough bring it to RS/N. - Haymaker (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my time is a bit freed up now that I'm done researching naval battles, so I went hunting for the sources you referred to.
1. LifeNews. Good luck getting that classified as a reliable source.
2. Couldn't find.
3. Found here. Mentions the roses as part of what defeated the bill, but it's by no means clear that the bill's defeat is to be attributed to ARAAP, and very little of the article is about ARAAP.
4. Couldn't find.
5. Found here. Opinion piece that mentions the group in passing.
6. Same link. Mentions the group only in passing, doesn't indicate that they ever achieved anything.
7. Found here. In spite of the opener, it's really just a short piece on the bill.
So much for "ability to influence legislation and state-wide politics over several years." They don't, in fact, appear to have influenced much of anything at all. You'll want to try a little harder there, partner. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try to avoid using sarcasm, it will build character. My fault on the first go, that was from lifesite, all of the rest are from the free abstracts of newspaper articles (mostly the News Journal) that google news offered, you can find them all there. While I was poking around I found this from Celia Cohen, a Delaware political writer who has written at least 1 book devoted entirely to Delaware politics and who is used as a source in many articles on the politics of Delaware writing about them. While the RSs covering them are finite there are more and we passed the mark as far as WP:ORG is concerned a while ago. - Haymaker (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another trivial mention that doesn't tell us anything about the group except that they are Opposed To All This Dammit. That's helpful.
"we passed the mark as far as WP:ORG is concerned a while ago" - don't you mean that we passed the mark as far as you are concerned? Because it's hard to establish notability for these little nothing provincial organizations even if there is significant local coverage, and you haven't even demonstrated that anyone in their own state cares about them. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roscelese, I'd also like to ask you to please try to maintain a more civil and/or neutral tone in this discussion. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I suppose. Frequenting AfD does tend to make one tired of seeing "it exists, therefore it needs to have an article" and other ridiculous notability claims, though. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are pretty much the same citations I found. My analysis was that either they were not "independent reliable sources" (being things like News-Journal op-ed pieces or POV websites) or else they did not provide "significant coverage" (being a passing mention of the group rather than an article giving significant information about the group). Significant coverage by independent reliable sources is required to demonstrate notability at Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you found any sources that satisfy the aforementioned notability requirements? The POV of the article is a problem too, but I wouldn't bother unless notability can be attested. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of coverage in The News-Journal. Just because it is not online does not discount its coverage. I'll cite some specific issues, anyone with access to a decent library should be able to obtain microfilm of the articles in question. A few references by the Catholic News Agency- although their editorial content might be pro-life, I think their credentials as a legitimate news service is adequate.Wkharrisjr (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course its not being online doesn't discount its coverage - offline sources can be very useful. It's just helpful to have it online so other editors can check what kind of coverage it is. References like the ones Haymaker provided above don't satisfy notability requirements, because they are passing mentions - if the News-Journal has done a profile on the group or something, that's great. What I found in their web archives doesn't appear to qualify, but who knows, they may not archive everything. (Though, "a decent library"? Maybe a decent library in Delaware, but not every library archives non-local newspapers short of the Times and that sort of thing - I have access to a number of "decent libraries," which don't archive the News-Journal.) On your work on the article: the Catholic.org seems like a trivial mention to me (all we know is that they're opposed to the bill and founded by Jenkins, then the article moves on to other stuff). The Catholic News Agency story is what I would consider on the low end of significant coverage - can you find more like that, or better? (The CWFA and NewsZap links are broken - I know you didn't add them, but if you're going to keep working on the article, it's worth knowing.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Celia Cohen wrote a great article on them. She seems to be a pretty big deal in her state and it used as a source on many other article. - Haymaker (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned Celia Cohen, but you didn't link the article. (Or if the one you linked above is Cohen's "article on them," it's not so much on them.) Is Cohen's article on them online? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My bad this was the one. - Haymaker (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might have the wrong link again - that one also only mentions ARAAP in passing, and the "it worked" seems to be a comment on the "moral argument" as a whole (including the diocese's work) rather than on the rose schtick. Those are the only two articles mentioning ARAAP on the Grapevine site - could it be hosted elsewhere? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how I read it. - Haymaker (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, do you actually have any significant stories on this group, or not? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the newspaper articles and the newswire services, I think the Cohen article represents significant coverage. - Haymaker (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then please reread WP:ORG so that you might understand "significant." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have read WP:ORG, I am familiar with what is meant as "significant", I believe this qualifies. - Haymaker (talk) 01:00, 11 January 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.
More