Talk:Catholic News Agency

This page was proposed for deletion by Softlemonades (talk · contribs) on 3 March 2023.
It was contested by Jahaza (talk · contribs) on 2023-03-04 with the comment:
CNA has been covered by National Catholic Reporter & others.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

Christianity: Catholicism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance).

Journalism

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I added this page because it had no Wiki-entry. I had seen news from it on a few occasions. I see that it was deleted, the reason given being lack of content. I think that is not a logical reason.

I added 3 cases of EWTN picking content from CNA. Given that EWTN with 123 million homes connected to it is a major (perhaps Major with Capital M I must say), news service, the content from CNA can not be called irrelevant. And it gets good and bad press, from Australia to Shanghai, so it is notable, even if people in Shanghai do not agree with its views.

This news service needs a Wikipedia page. History2007 (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not only in english

by now there are besides english, versions in german, italien, spanish and portugese 2003:DA:9BE9:EB01:A84B:2BF6:87D0:BF49 (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (It is a major Catholic service for news on the Internet.) --Gondolabúrguer (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Find an RS that says so Softlemonades (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jahaza Thanks for your edits, but most of what you cited isnt "coverage" its their name being mentioned. WP:GNG Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Softlemonades (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you really insist you can AFD it, but I think it's a waste of time. It's difficult to Google because the name of the news agency is in all their articles, but the agency gets covered when it has major personnel changes etc., because it's a significant source for Catholic news. Jahaza (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jahaza If you are the page creator, please do your own research rather than pointing fingers at others for not identifying sources. The vast, vast majority of content relating to this agency does appear to be self-created. Nevertheless it appears IMHO to be notable. In service of the Wikipedia project (and only incidentally in service of a user who relies on a claim the truth is out there but "hard to google") I added a *first page Google result* which supports notability/RS Oblivy (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy, I am not the page creator and I recently added a couple of RSs to the page, so your criticism is entirely misplaced. Jahaza (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're right. Sorry for missing that. I do stand by my point that it's not constructive to suggest that people aren't finding coverage of a topic because they can't work Google although I could have phrased it more nicely. With respect to your recent change, I'm going to move the ref tag back where it was because the citation doesn't support the second ("anglophone") section of the sentence. If you have a concern about that let me know and hopefully we can work it out. Oblivy (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]