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. The consensus below is that this was a notable event under its previous name and that deletion is not an appropriate outcome, though a rename might be considered. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Day of Dialogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This event does not meet the basic criteria of WP:GNG in that it has not received Significant Coverage in Reliable Sources that are Independent of the Subject. The article is sourced by references to “dayofdialogue.com” and “focusonthefamily.com” which cannot be considered independent sources. The non-independent “alliancedefensefund.org” does not even mention “Day of Dialogue” in their articles. Other references used in the article do not directly mention the subject, and no significant coverage of the event is found elsewhere in independent sources. Nonogyro (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Twenty sources are presented, many of them independent. No reason to delete. Toa Nidhiki05 19:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And we do not need to "Capitalize Every Word in a Sentence" <g>. Noted in Baton Rouge Advocate [1], Cincinnatti Enquirer (Google news archive link available) , Colorado Springs Gazette (link available) , MSNBC (link available - simple Google search but system burps on this here), etc. Meeting WP notability guidelines. Collect (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: The topics in the sources are "Day of Silence" and "Day of Truth"; does not even mention "Day of Dialogue". Nonogyro (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As Nonogyro said, none of the reliable sources mention 'Day of Dialogue'. Unless reliable sources which give this actual event coverage can be found, it is not notable, regardless of what other days of something exist. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: there is more than sufficient coverage to pass notability (WP:N) however that coverage primarily rests with "Day of Truth." Day of Truth was renamed to Day of Dialogue by the sponsor and likewise the name of the article. If we're going to be so technical we can just rename the article back to "Day of Truth." – Lionel ^(talk) 21:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• tough call, it could seem notable but nmost of the sources go directly back to the organising or such supportive measures and would seem as primary sources. If other better wousrces are found to make it notable beyond the said organising group who seem to be advertising it then i think it should be kept. So in all wait and then renom later.Lihaas (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep . CNN, among others, is a significant independent source. Last Lost (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is the subject of the CNN source (which, as a newsblog does contribute to establishing notability), and demonstrates that this used to be the 'Day of Truth'. The release by AP seems to have been picked up fairly widely, for example here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7477978/ns/us_news/t/group-makes-noise-over-day-silence/#.TzGP5W-_dUc . There is more around. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No mention of “Day of Dialogue” in CNN article, so not sure how that source is relevant to this discussion. The only source that actually mentions “Day of Dialogue” is the Day of Dialogue website, and that is not independent. Git2010 (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it mentions: Focus on the Family said that the Day of Dialogue "will boast a new name while maintaining the same goal it's had since its 2005 inception. Anyway, this argument is irrelevant, since the equivalence of DoD and DoT, according to Wp rules, may be legally referred from the DoD website, together with other basic facts, such as names of directors, day of incorparation, etc. Last Lost (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- The main problem with this article is that no one has updated it for over a year. Possibly move back to Day of Truth, which currently redirects to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main problem with wikipedia is that it looks like 87% of its articles are updated only by bots and vandals. Anyway, point taken; since the article is under the fire and article creators don't care, I'll throw in a couple lines. Last Lost (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. Wait. Peterkingiron is mistaken. He was probably looking here instead of here. Last Lost (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable as Day of Truth. A412 (Talk * C) 03:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subject meets requirements of WP:N. I would also like to suggest that nominator carefully reads WP:HARASS, which is a serious Wikipedia policy. The majority of nom's AFD request's seem to center around articles that User:Lionelt has created. SaveATreeEatAVegan 07:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.