Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 keep. j⚛e deckertalk 14:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (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)

This group does not appear to be notable (WP:ORG, WP:GNG). It gets a lot of hits in obviously unusable sources, a few trivial mentions that don't pass "significant." SPLC has identified it as a hate group, but I don't think SPLC sources alone can hold up an article. I also don't think that its leader's recent comments about shooting liberal academics are more than a news event. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the multiple press articles mentioned in the article. Quoting from one of the references: "Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), a non-governmental organization that specializes in assisting United Nations (U.N.) delegations to negotiate U.N. resolutions, treaties and conventions." With credentials like that, the suggestion of it being non-notable is dubious at best. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are just a few: From the Washington Post: "Leading Catholic conservatives reacted to the new guide with disdain. Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute in Washington, called it "a blatant attempt to convince Catholics that they can vote for candidates who are wrong on the primary human rights issue of our time, which is abortion." [1]

From the New York Times: "Of course, these views are hardly mainstream. For every Rod Dreher, the Orthodox Christian blogger, and meat-eater, who recently wrote a respectful post about Dr. Camosy and the others, or Andrew Sullivan, the Catholic blogger who also praised Dr. Camosy, there may be an Austin Ruse. Writing in Crisis, a Catholic magazine, in October, he called Dr. Camosy’s views “deeply offensive.”[2]

From BuzzFeed: "But Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, an advocacy group that opposes LGBT and abortion rights in international agreements, said LGBT advocates are scapegoating the Holy See when in reality there is broad-based support for excluding sexual orientation and gender identity language.

“The Holy See is an easy target but the fact of the matter is there is no real interest in accepting [sexual orientation and gender identity] language in U.N. documents,” Ruse said. “Opposition to [this] language is widespread and includes nations from every continent. I cannot speak for the Holy See but from experience over years at the U.N., the Holy See is nothing more or less than a part of a coalition of states advancing what they believe is right.”[3]

    • Buzzfeed is only the 43rd largest website in the country and the 124th largest in the world [4] What's more, Lester Feder, who handles the LGBT beat for Buzzfeed came from Politico and is one of the most notable journalists covering that beat, particularly from an international angle. He uses C-FAM's leader on a regular basis. And what of the New York Times and Washington Post? If C-FAM were not notable enough for an article, you would suspect it would not be the subject of coverage in two of the most influential newspapers in the world. One wonders if your political views aren't coming into play here. Eggloff (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)EggloffEggloff (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References
  1. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801664.html
  2. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/07/us/exploring-christian-perspectives-on-animal-rights.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias%3Ar&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry518%23%2F%22Austin+Ruse%22
  3. ^ http://buzzfeed.langiane.com/lesterfeder/despite-popes-softening-tone-the-vatican-remains-a-key-oppon
  4. ^ http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/buzzfeed.com
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/Catholic_Family_and_Human_Rights_Institute_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1068980453"