This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've been cleaning up the page and wikifying it a bit. When is the proper time to remove the boxes up top? Thanks ConstRepublic (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I don't object, but How does that org relate to the "Justice fellowship" section already on this page? Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Scratch that, I DO oppose, per a Google News shows some USA Today, Washington Post, NY Times, Salon, and Christianity Today coverage extending back to 1996. Jclemens (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
No. Mere hits merely show mention -- they are not evidence of "significant coverage".
The USA Today piece is about the movie Amazing Grace, and merely mentions the WF in passing.
The WP piece appears to be just a letter to the editor (thus not a RS) about a letter written by somebody who happened to be a senior WF member.
I could go on, but really can't be bothered wasting my time documenting them further. If there is any "significant coverage" among this dross, then it is your responsibility to bring it to the discussion.
These sorts of results are exactly why I have such a poor opinion of Google-News-hits arguments and the editors who make them. They are simply a disingenuous waste of my time. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Tsk. Be nice, please. I'm not wasting your time; I could assert that by nominating a merge without doing a search yourself and addressing the results, you are the one wasting everyone else's time... but I won't. Having not said that, then, I still don't see a compelling reason for the merge. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Jclemens: nothing of what you said has any basis in either fact or WP:MERGE. You have neither evidence of "significant coverage" nor a valid reason to criticise my proposal. That Wilberforce Forum lacks any third party sources is sufficient of "a compelling reason for the merge" on its own. Unless you can provide such "significant coverage", I have no interest in wasting more of my time on you. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
