Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alive Bible Club
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 redirect from merge. GRBerry 14:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alive Bible Club
The subject lacks notability. There is insufficient media coverage to create more than a stub. - Jehochman Talk 03:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This would clearly be non-notable but for the fact that the club is suing the school. In my view, taking legal action would not make an organisation notable unless that action actually causes the organisation to become notable. For example, the legal action may be doomed to fail and be dismissed or withdrawn without controversy (as most of these cases are). It seems to me that the only independent coverage of the action is minor, and limited to local or regional news. If the case got to the Supreme Court or made the national news, there may be a case for notability, but not yet. --Mkativerata 04:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect into Equal Access Act. The individual Bible Club is not notable but the issue has legal importance as a test of laws surrounding both religious and gay student organizations. I have gone ahead and merged the relevant information from this article into the list of similar cases on the Equal Access Act page. The remainder of this article has no notability (for example, the names of the students are not relevant and the majority of the links are either dead or duplicates of the Thomas More press release). Euryalus 04:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- The press release isn't a reliable source in this situation. Merging the useful bits is a fine idea. - Jehochman Talk 05:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Perhaps its better placed as an external link though if the article is redirected it's a moot point. The only viable reference left is the Evening Bulletin, which I have also transferred to the Equal Access Act page. Euryalus 05:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- The press release isn't a reliable source in this situation. Merging the useful bits is a fine idea. - Jehochman Talk 05:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect or Merge into part of a larger article which is notable itslf, [[Equal Access Act] may be the place, I would have to look around some more, but this article simply does not appear to carry enough notability on its own, nor is there much ability to bring this article beyond a stub status on its own. Tiggerjay 07:05, 11 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.
