Talk:Courage UK

message: At 01:55, 7 December 2006, User:CovenantD nominated this page for speedy deletion:
:    This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)  
Can someone clarify how this importance is to be stated?  Or more importantly, how it is to be tested?
I have no idea whether Courage UK is important enough to have a Wikipedia article, because I haven't the faintest idea how important it is within Evangelical circles, or within the discussions related to the ex-gay movement, or within the day-to-day life of the average citizen of England.  If someone can clarify that, then we can all agree on whether this article should be deleted.
But I am very nervous about the idea of a speedy deletion of this article, since the stated reason is that this group might not be important.  I would rather delete it once its unimportance is established, not merely hypothesized.  — Lawrence King (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself. Many topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to appear in Wikipedia. This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable encyclopedia article about the topic. CovenantD 10:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that makes it a prod/afd candidate, but the speedy criteria says that the article can't ASSERT notability. This article *does* ASSERT notability, the concern is that it's not backed up. I've replaced the speedy tag with prod, if this subject is notable hopefully some additional documentation and good sourcing will be added. Perel 13:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Whoops. I should have done that when I added the prod tag, and forgot. This page is the original editor's only contribution, so I did a welcome and added a prod/notability paragraph afterwards. Perel 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion? 

message: A quick Google search turns up a heck of a lot of hits for "courage trust", "courage uk", "jeremy marks", and combinations thereof.  I found  four news articles that seemed to come from reputable sources, including The Advocate and the newspaper for the United Church of Christ.  I added them to the references.
I submit that this means the article should not be deleted.  Would you agree?
I admit that I'm closer to an inclusionist than a deletionist.  So I am also swayed by the fact that this group is discussed a lot on the 'net -- most of the Google hits were blogs, discussion boards, etc.  I consider that sort of thing encyclopedic; you may not; and thus I took the four references solely from the more solid media. — Lawrence King (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I adjusted them to External links to differenciate from sources used in writing the article. Blogs and such are, in almost all cases, not considered reliable sources so your decision to leave them out was a good one. CovenantD 09:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that. It DOES need better sourcing, but this group does seem to be notable enough upon closer inspection. I'm in favor of removing the prod and leaving this with just an unsourced template unless anyone objects. Perel 16:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd rather see it go to AFD so a larger group of editors can make the determination. CovenantD 19:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No deletion? 

message: Since there is a hatnote directing users who might be confused to the Courage Int'l article, I'm not sure what further use an in-article note serves. However, if an in-article note is included, it most certainly must be neutral and accurate. Courage Int'l is an organization with a specific function, that of encouraging celibacy by gay Catholics. It's not a general support organization - if you are in a relationship or want to be, it doesn't support you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be easier to take your comments seriously if they didn't include so many misspelt words. Is it deliberate? 122.60.167.21 (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote vs. textual explanation 

message: The lead states that Courage UK, "was originally founded as an ex-gay organization that sought to change gay people to straight..." That needs to be rewritten; "to change gay people to straight" is not good English. It is a vulgar expression, and the grammar is dubious. 122.60.173.222 (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Courage UK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930185014/http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=166&sec=20&cont=5 to http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=166&sec=20&cont=5
*Added  tag to http://www.ecwr.org/aboutus/News_Ex-gay_Leader_Speaks_July10.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206010519/http://www.ucc.org/ucnews/aug03/changing.htm to http://www.ucc.org/ucnews/aug03/changing.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified