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 no consensus. AfD != cleanup, there really is no clear consensus on this one, article does require cleanup for NPOV issues / does require RS. Closed without prejudice Tawker ( talk) 20:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Christopher Ferrara

Christopher Ferrara (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little more than a puffed-up CV/linkedin profile. Significant coverage in reliable sources, i.e. WP:N and WP:GNG are nowhere to be found. No profiles or coverage of him as a lawyer, the books authored are published by non-notable fringe press, such as Remnant Press, an obscure outfit classified as a hate group by the SPLC. The 3 refs in the article at present are to bio pages at the respective non-notable organizations. Tarc ( talk) 14:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC) reply

  • The above poster objects to Ferrera's religion and politics, ahrdly a reason to delete his biographical information. Here is a partial reason why the poster objects. Given the time of the post it may be that he listened to Mr Ferrera on The Mike Church show on Sirius Patriot Channel 125 this morning (4.2.14)
Christopher A. Ferrara. President and founder of the American Catholic Lawyers Association., Mr. Ferrara has been a chief Remnant columnist since 2000. He holds a BA from Fordham and a JD from Fordham University School of Law. Mr. Ferrara has distinguished himself as a champion of the unborn and the often persecuted defenders of the unborn. He has been involved in many landmark cases (including the effort to save the life of Terri Schiavo) and uses his skills as a highly successful lawyer to defend the traditional teachings and liturgy of the Church. He is a widely published author on Catholic Church affairs, authored EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong, The New Rosary, Secret Still Hidden: A Cover-up, and co-authored The Great Facade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckHinners ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC) — ChuckHinners ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
I gave quite sufficient reasons in the nomination statement, explaining why I believe this person does not satisfy this project's notability requirements. As for...whatever the hell the rest of that ranting was about...I neither own a Sirius device nor would I use such a device to listen to something such as this. Tarc ( talk) 19:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - the problem is that the only sources that might be considered reliable are almost entirely negative. I mean, we might be able to create an article based on reliable sources but it's going to become a WP:WEIGHT issue if we ignore the negative in favour of the marginally positive like this review by the current president of the John Birch Society or this article by Anthony Cekada or this review by the current president of the Center for the American Idea. Most of what is available is material like this from people like Thomas Woods. Most of the puffery would have to be removed and replaced with reliably sourced content which wouldn't be very positive at all. Stalwart 111 08:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No indication of notability. He's a lawyer. He's president of a non-notable lawyer's organization. He once spoke at the EU HQ. He's written some non-notable books. Nothing indicating notabily. TJRC ( talk) 01:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Except, TJRC, the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, right? Stalwart 111 04:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • From the review of Mr. Ferrara "not notable book" on Amazon:

"Chris Ferrara's book most persuasively demonstrates that negative liberty is an idol and that liberalism is the last of the ideologies. Indeed he shows that it was the basic ideology hidden behind all the others." --John Milbank, University of Nottingham, author of Theology and Social Theory

"Highly readable and an intellectual landmark in Catholic ecclesiastical history. It should be read by everyone concerned with Christian theology and its political shaping of the society we live in." --Graham Ward, Regius Professor of Divinity, University of Oxford

"An absolutely epochal achievement--one of the finest historical studies I have ever read. Every true son of an America still waiting to be transformed in Christ owes the author a boundless debt of gratitude." --John Rao (D.Phil., Oxford); Associate Professor of History, St. John's University

"I've hardly been able to put it down since I opened it. The narrative is compelling from beginning to end and a pleasure to read. Rich in learning and insight, Liberty, the God That Failed is a tour de force--a marvelous achievement!" --Patrick McKinley Brennan, John F. Scarpa Chair in Catholic Legal Studies, Villanova University

Not notable? You must be joking. Woods's hit piece is answered by Ferrara here. This encyclopedia should not become a forum for personal grudges against Ferrara. Here is a listing of Ferrara's book The Church and the Libertarian as one of the Ten Best Books of 2010 according to Dale Ahlquist of Ignatius Press: [1]
Ferrara is also attorney of record in dozens of reported decisions, many of which are national or circuit precedents. The person demanding deletion seems motivated by animus, not knowledge of Ferrara's work. His citation of the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose credibility has been questioned by mainstream news organizations because of its reckless characterization of people as haters ( [2]) indicates bias. Circa Corleone ( talk) 03:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't think it does, but you need to understand how notability is established here. Gushing praise from people with the same ideology is often not considered independent of the subject. Woods' article is not a "hit piece" at all - the two wrote a book together in 2002 and 8 years later found themselves on either side of a vexed debate about libertarianism and the role of the Catholic Church in American neo-conservatism. It's unfortunate that they've had a fairly public falling out but notability here is not going to be established by blogs-at-10-paces. The problem is that just as Ferrara has come into conflict with Woods, he has also come into conflict with others and its is those sources that are most prominent. As I said above, I believe he meets the threshold set by WP:GNG but supporters of the article need to understand what is likely going to happen if the article is kept. Stalwart 111 04:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
"Gushing praise from people of the same ideology" could be applied to anyone whose books are favorably reviewed in the realm of politics. That "gushing praise" is precisely what the books are notable, especially "gushing praise" from world renowned writers like John Milbank and Graham Ward.
I find it odd that you cite "conflict with others" as a reason to delete, while minimizing support for Ferrara's work as "gushing praise from people of the same ideology." What about "unfair criticism from people of opposing ideologies." That Ferrara has provoked such controversy is precisely why his work is notable.
An exact name search produces 363,000 hits for Mr. Ferrara. As the author of six books and a renowned pro-life litigator, he is abundantly referenced and discussed on the Internet. The claim that he is not notable is absurd. Circa Corleone ( talk) 04:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
And here is a personal recommendation one of Ferrara's books (The Secret Still Hidden) by the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States: [3]
And also a very favorable review by Crisis magazine: [4]
Finding praise for Ferrara's work is not hard if you look for it. Circa Corleone ( talk) 04:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
You need to read what has been written before jumping to conclusions and firing off another angry missive. I've not cited anything as a reason to delete the article - I'm the only person so far to have expressed a formal view that it should be kept. You're doing yourself no favours by angrily arguing with the one person so far who agrees with you. WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a good reason for keeping an article. "Unfair criticism" can contribute to notability but the "unfair" part would need to be verified in independent sources. This is the problem I highlighted a few days ago - those that support him do so in blogs and forums not generally considered reliable sources for our purposes. The problem does apply equally to those in politics. Stalwart 111 04:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Fair enough. My apologies. Here is an of Mr. Ferrara by Associated Press: [5]
Here is Mr. Ferrara participating in a BBC panel discussion as an expert: [6]
He is actually one of the most prominent traditional Catholic spokesmen in the world. The entry on Catholic traditionalists lists him as one of trad Catholic spokesmen in America. Also an NBC interview of Ferrara: [7]
A History Commons entry for one of Ferrara's notable legal cases:
Extended content
Profile: Christopher Ferrara

Christopher Ferrara was a participant or observer in the following events: May 16, 2002: Appeals Court Rules Anti-Abortion Posters, Web Sites Naming Abortion Providers a ThreatEdit event A federal appeals court in San Francisco rules that anti-abortion organizations who engage in the practice of distributing posters targeting abortion providers (see 1995 and After) are illegally threatening the lives and well-being of the people they are targeting. The 6-5 verdict also rules that Web sites such as The Nuremberg Files (see January 1997), which list doctors’ names and addresses and “lines out” the names of those doctors who are murdered, also threaten the lives of the named doctors. The defendants unsuccessfully claimed they were engaging in constitutionally protected political advocacy; the plaintiffs—four doctors and two health clinics—argued that the speech in question encouraged violence against abortion providers. The verdict overturns a previous three-judge ruling by the same court and reinstates a $109 million award for the plaintiffs. Writing for the majority, Judge Pamela Ann Rymer states: “While advocating violence is protected, threatening a person with violence is not.… This is not political hyperbole. They were a true threat.” Maria Vullo, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, says the essence of the decision is rejection of threatening speech. Of the “political advocacy” practiced by the defendants, Vullo says, “It’s really terrorism.” Christopher Ferrara, a lawyer for the defendants, says his clients will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. “This is a threat case without any identifiable threat,” he says. “We’re found liable for the format we chose.” [NEW YORK TIMES, 5/17/2002] In spite of the verdict, the practice will continue (see January - April 2003, Fall 2009, and September 13, 2010). Entity Tags: Christopher Ferrara, Maria Vullo, Pamela Ann Rymer, “The Nuremberg Files” Timeline Tags: US Health Care

There is a really a vast amount of information on Ferrara's writings and career. This really isn't a question of notability as such, but rather controversy. Circa Corleone ( talk) 04:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Yeah, the problem with those sources is that they don't offer coverage of the subject (which is what is required), they offer coverage of other things by the subject. His commentary about the Church tells us nothing about him and provides nothing of biographical value that we could use in an article about him. He may well be considered an expert on traditional Catholicism and his views might even be cited in articles on Wikipedia where that view is considered relevant. But those things don't make him notable. Stalwart 111 04:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
I am really struggling to understand this concept of notable: he's written six books, favorably reviewed by prominent public figures, he is considered prominent enough to be consulted by BBC, NBC, AP, and is listed on Wikipedia itself as one of only five prominent Catholic traditionalists in the United States. How is he not notable?
I have a legitimate question:
You write: ""Unfair criticism" can contribute to notability but the "unfair" part would need to be verified in independent sources." I am not aware of any independent sources that verify the unfairness of criticism of ANY controversial public figure. This is always a matter of endless back and forth in the public forum, is it not? There is no final verdict, but only notable controversy about notable figures. Am I missing something? I am not trying to be a wise acre, but I really don't see how this person could be considered anything but notable. Wikipedia itself says in the article on traditional Catholics that he is one of he notable ones. Perhaps the problem is the skimpiness of the article? Circa Corleone ( talk) 05:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
The problem is a lack of independent sources that give us enough biographical information to substantiate a well-sourced article about the subject. Again, his commentary and expert opinion tell us nothing about him - not where he went to school or how he came to form his views or his relationships with other prominent commentators. Occasionally they include a line about which organisation he is affiliated with. And this is often the case with "experts" and prominent media figures. We see them in print media and on TV but we know very little about them. What we do know about them is usually published by them and is considered, for our purposes here, a primary source which we can only use in limited ways and isn't usually considered for the purposes of substantiating notability. What we need is significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. I think we have that (and you could start by adding those to the article). The most valuable thing you can do now is to add your "vote" on the basis of your commentary thus far and then work on improving the article if it is kept. Stalwart 111 05:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
OK. That seems reasonable. Frankly, the article as written is very skimpy. There is so much more that could be said, including published interviews along the lines of what you describe. As to voting, I assume this commentary is the vote? There is not some other way I should indicate it? Circa Corleone ( talk) 05:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Like this... ( Stalwart 111 05:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)) reply
  • Keep - based on commentary and sources above. A few more of the innumerable examples of coverage of Ferrara: interview by Distributist review: [8] Interview by Life Site News, one of the world's most accessed web sites: [9] He's really all over the place. Thanks. Circa Corleone ( talk) 05:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment' - Nothing presented thus far is of any value towards establishing notability. Primary sources, fringe publications (lifesitenews? Please...), and the like. Reviews of the book do not confer necessarily confer notability on the author. There is nothing here that isn't part of a neo-catholic agenda advanced by single-purpose accounts. Tarc ( talk) 13:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This whole thread was started by "tarc," who seems to think his epithet "fringe publications" and his snide remarks and insults ("Life Site News, please!"---as if that proves something) are grounds for deletion of a longstanding bio entry that needs only beefing up. He reveals his bias, and his lack of subject matter expertise, by referring to a "neo-Catholic agenda." Ferrara and the publications for which he writes are, in fact, opposed precisely to the neo-Catholic agenda in the Church because they are traditionalist publications. Wikipedia itself includes Ferrara in its "List of Notable Catholic Traditionalists". How does a notable traditionalist suddenly become not notable after all these years? "Tarc" offers no reasoning, but only his hostility to the entry and to traditionalists in general. His reliance on the Southern Poverty Law Center, credibility has hit rock bottom even in the mainstream press (see Alexander Cockburn expose, cited above) further reveals his bias. Circa Corleone ( talk) 14:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
What I have offered, from the very beginning, is proof that this person does not meet the threshold for notability as defined in this project. Small publications and religious texts do not meet our standards for reliable sourcing. The amount of time that an article has existed is irrelevant, and being renowned within a small, specialized religious movement doesn't mean that the rest of the world has taken notice...because quite obviously they have not. Stalwart111 is a bit overly-optimistic that blood can be squeezed from a stone here, that a bunch of tiny, disparate mentions about other things and activities that this person has done or said can add up to notability. Tarc ( talk) 15:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Tarc, I don't think I've been particular optimistic, let alone "overly-optimistic". My keep opinion was prefaced by "weak" for a reason. I think sources like this (from an arguably reliable source notable enough to have his own article here) are substantive enough to make some argument that the subject is notable. Even more so when you consider those two wrote a book together and have since had a falling out, giving credence to the suggestion that Woods' view of the subject is far more "independent" than it might have previously been. The book they wrote and his other books since have been fairly well referenced and reviewed though obviously those with an interest in the subjects he writes about have more enthusiastically reviewed his work than others. But there are other reviews like this that are fairly neutral in their assessment of the subject and his work. I'm still not entirely convinced (and have actually argued against some of the stronger keep opinions as you can see) but I think he (just) falls this side of the WP:N divide. Stalwart 111 02:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Tarc, you haven't offered any proof, but only tendentious characterizations of the author of six books, widely reviewed by independent publications, characterizing him as a "fringe" figure with "fringe publishers." You are not the arbiter of what constitutes "fringe" literature. Further, Wikipedia is supposed to be a democratic forum for diverse views, not a place where someone with an obvious axe to gride can cite the ridiculous Southern Poverty Law Center and demand deletion of established author whose latest book has been praised by leading academics from Oxford and the University of Notthingham. Your sneering tone ("LifeSite news, please!") is not consistent with good faith criticism. Circa Corleone ( talk) 16:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Furthermore, there is not requirement that the whole world take notice of a notable figure, but only his intellectual community or specialty. At any rate, NBC, AP, BBC and the NY TImes have quoted Ferrara. That's called "the rest of the world." Why are you so determined to trash this entry? What does it matter to you? Circa Corleone ( talk) 16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
As for your claim that there is no coverage of Ferrara as a lawyer, that is simply false. Here is one example among many: http://www.lifenews.com/2011/07/14/judge-rules-for-pro-life-girls-shackled-strip-searched/ Search "Christopher Ferrara" name and "Nuremberg Files" and you will find coverage all over the world, as you will when you search "Christopher Ferrara and Schiavo." You clearly think little of the man, but he gets around and his notability cannot seriously be questioned even if he is not "world famous" and espouses views you and the Southern Poverty Law Center do not like. Circa Corleone ( talk) 17:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Books published by fringe hate groups do not count towards notability, and yes, there most certainly is a requirement that "the whole world take notice"; that is how we determine notability around here. That you do not understand this is unfortunate, and ultimately wasting everyone's time by arguing points that do not matter. Tarc ( talk) 19:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Mr. Ferrara is obviously a notable figure as shown by the extensive material cited above, but I would like to add the following comment in favor of retaining the entry which was offered by Jeffrey Rubin, who has authorized its publication in his name. Mr. Rubin, among other things, is the former Editor of the Conservative Book Club and a graduate of Harvard University. As an aside, I would like to mention I have also been a past donor to Wikipedia.
Mr. Rubin's quote follows:
"I have read three of Christopher Ferrara's books -- one of them co-authored with Tom Woods, ironically -- and am a regular reader of his Remnant articles. As a former editor of the Conservative Book Club, and the founding editor of The Latin Mass magazine, I can say with some authority that Mr. Ferrara is one of, perhaps even THE, best Catholic writers of our time. His perspective on all the most important issues of concern to Catholics, especially the importance of tradition, is indispensable to intelligent conversation on these topics. To credit the Southern Poverty Law Center, or anyone else of its ilk, with having something valuable to say is absurd -- most if not all of them would brand any orthodox or traditional Catholic as being a 'hater' if they thought they could get away with it without seeming to be bigots themselves. Which they are. It would be a disgrace to Wikipedia, which I consult regularly and have donated to, to take down this page." Jeffrey Rubin 96.57.139.91 ( talk) 18:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
96.57.139.91 ( talk · contribs) has only contributed to this AFD. TJRC ( talk) 19:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Whoever this Rubin is, they cite personal opinion as reasons to retain the article rather than any Wikipedia policy of guideline. This is why the project weighs the opinions of outside interests next-to-nothing. Fan clubs don't get votes. Tarc ( talk) 19:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Since "tarc" has tipped his hand by the phrase "fringe hate groups," revealing his political bias and enmity toward traditional Catholics and their publications, this discussion, which is based entirely on his insulting characterizations, should be terminated and the entry kept. No, it is not necessary that notable personage be noted as such by the entire world. Here are the guidelines as applied to Ferrara:
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]
This has been shown in spades: six published books, book reviews numerous venues, news coverage of his major cases, major media interviews with him as an expert, and thousands of published articles.
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[7]
"Tarc" cannot deny that Ferrara is a notable contributor to the literature and public discourse of Catholic traditionalism, his specific field, including thousands of articles and six books which are obviously part of the historical record, and that Wikipedia lists him as one of America's notable traditional Catholics. Nor can he deny that Mr. Ferrara's involvement in the landmark legal cases cited above establishes his contribution to the historical record of First Amendment and civil rights lawsuits. In addition, West Law reveals numerous reported cases in which Ferrara was legal counsel.
Tarc's "case" is revealed by the phrase "fringe hate groups," which he thinks suffices to disqualify any consideration of the sources of Ferrara's notoriety. They're all fringe hate groups, you see. Name-calling is not an intelligent argument against the notability of a subject, who, in this case, is clearly notable enough to incur "tarc's" furious opposition. Circa Corleone ( talk) 20:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Since my radio show was listed in this discussion as a possible source/reason for the "delete" motion I must respond. Mr Ferrara has been interviewed 3 times on the show since January, 2014. His interviews generated the kind of phone cal, email and comment traffic one expects from well spoken advocates for a controversial point of view. Perhaps the controversy here is that one of the West's leading lay persons, writing on the future from a Catholic perspective, is targeted AFTER his work begins gaining significant traction. Christopher's listing is earned and needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamkingdude ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC) — Iamkingdude ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Comment - This discussion appears to have caught the attention of an external site or discussion board, as the single-purpose accounts are beginning to pile up. Tarc ( talk) 22:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, lack of reliable independent sources. Guy ( Help!) 23:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Interesting process. Tarc gets to hurl the invective "fringe hate groups," use of which violates Wiki courtesy guidelines, and then dismiss all objections as "single-user accounts" and put up a self-serving tag saying this is not a democracy. Also interesting is the use of the term "reliable sources," which appears to exclude all sources that do not share the commenters point of view: you know, the "fringe hate groups" denounced by the other "neutral" commenter. I think we have here a clear case of the liberal bias Wales admits still exists in Wikipedia operations. Circa Corleone ( talk) 00:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Review Reliable Sources at your leisure. Tarc ( talk) 01:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply
I have reviewed them, and they do not allow you to dismiss The Remnant, Latin Mass Magazine, Catholic Family News, New Oxford Review, Distributist Review, Crisis Magazine, and other such sources as "fringe hate groups" because they have point of view. "Reliable sources" does not mean sources that have no point of view. How do you get away with "fringe hate groups" as an en bloc characterization of every source that has covered Ferrara if Wiki is is supposed to be neutral yet tolerant of differing points of view? Circa Corleone ( talk) 01:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I am an attorney who has known Chris Ferrara for close to 20 years. He is a Catholic attorney who zealously fights for the rights of Catholics, without regard to ability to pay. His religious and political writings are informed by a profound understanding of Catholicism and American history and politics. I have seen him demonstrate nothing but kindness, charity and goodwill to all persons regardless of their background. James Bendell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbendell ( talk • contribs) 01:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply
— Jbendell ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Just because a person has written a book or two, and is a lawyer, and has good reviews of said book, does not mean they are notable enough for Wikipedia. Also see WP:NOTTRUTH for supplementary reading. Tutelary ( talk) 01:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment:
You mean (1) six books with numerous good reviews by independent reviewers and publications, including by two-world renowned scholars who have never met Ferrara, (2) thousands of articles published in at least a dozen different well-established Catholic publications, from New Oxford Review, to Crisis, to Latin Mass magazine, (3) his own internet column with 675 entries, hosted by an independent organization; (4) interviews as a Catholic expert by BBC, AP, NBC, ABC, (5) three appearances on the longest-running conservative talk show on Sirius Radio in just the last three months, (6) at least two landmark legal cases that have received worldwide coverage (Schiavo and the Nuremberg files case), (7) a personal invitation from Peter Thiel to attend last year's Villefranche conference to present his traditional Catholic views, (8) head of an organization that litigates news-reported cases all over the country, (9) lead columnist for a traditional Catholic newspaper which has its own notable entry in Wikipedia (The Remnant), has been in existence for more than forty years, and whose views are read quoted on the Web and Catholic sites all over the world, (10) a traditional Catholic prominent enough to be listed by Wikipedia itself as a "notable Catholic traditionalist" in America (one of only four or five names) for many years? (The traditionalist movement embracing at least a million people worldwide).
You mean that unknown fella? Unbelievable. This game is rigged. I am bowing out. How do I cancel my account and escape from this insanity? What a monumental waste of time. The whole "neutrality" pose at Wikipedia is a charade hiding liberal prejudices.
I will conclude on this note, directed at the one who started this deletion campaign and refuses to let it go. From Wiki standards: "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. "Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process."
The editor who initiated the demand for deletion of this bio is clearly not interested in cooperating to build a better article, nor in consensus about how to do that. He (along with his allies) is interested in ignoring or minimizing all evidence of notability, smearing the subject and his venues as "fringe hate groups"—a direct violation of Wiki's prohibition of ad hominem attacks and name-calling—and thus having the subject declared a Wiki non-person. That is not cooperation in building a better article. That is an agenda driven by dislike of traditional Catholic personages and publications the author rashly equates with hate groups, in a complete departure from the sober, academic, "neutral" approach that is supposed to characterize this project, but clearly does not in far too many cases, including this one. Circa Corleone ( talk) 03:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply
That you keep impugning my motivations and fundamentally misunderstanding what we're doing here only reflects badly on you, I'm afraid. There is not a "demand" for the article's deletion; it is a discussion. A nominator finds fault with an article, and since we do not decide things by fiat here, it is proposed for deletion. Think of it like an exercise in forensics, where the sides are judged not on the number of arguments but on the quality thereof. The Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor do you have the right (i.e. freedom of speech and whatnot) to be here, or to have an article here. There are rules and guidelines to adhere to, and if you can not formulate an argument that cites such rules and guidelines, you will be just as ignored as someone who yells "You're wrong and you suck!" in a formal debate. Tarc ( talk) 17:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Oh I see. So when you hurl the phrase "fringe hate groups" that does NOT mean "you suck," is not an ad hominem attack, and is not name-calling. Right. I will let the administrator decide this. Further debate is pointless. Circa Corleone ( talk) 17:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Sadly, it is the truth, as The Remnant is an anti-semitic organization. We most certainly do not use racist publications to assert notability in this project. Tarc ( talk) 18:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Another violation of Wiki guidelines: You cite the opinion of a far-Left organization as "the truth" without recognizing that SPLC has been criticized in the mainstream press (see Cockburn expose noted above, among many others) as an unreliable source. That is, you use a patently unreliable source, a source widely ridiculed for its reckless accusations against good people and organizations, to question the reliability of another source. Further, you spoke in the plural: "fringe hate groups." Now you are down to one fringe hate group. But Ferrara's work has been published and praised in numerous sources, many cited above.
You can have the last word in your filibuster. I will not be posting again. Thank you. Circa Corleone ( talk) 18:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Praise for an anti-Semite itself becomes suspect, yes. Your departure from this affair is most appreciated. Tarc ( talk) 20:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Between the sources identified by Stalwart111 and the interviews/coverage by fairly biased sources, we've easily met WP:N. The hard part is going to be WP:NPOV. But our inclusion guidelines are met. Hobit ( talk) 09:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC) reply
COMMENT: I agree with Hobit that notability has been duly established. When major media outlets contact Ferrara in an unsolicited manner for his comments on major developments in the Catholic Church and the Pro-Life Movement -- such as the election of Pope Francis, the legacy of Vatican II and the Nuremberg Files Case -- it would be incongruous for Wikipedia to deny Ferrara's notability as a spokesperson representing the conservative Catholic position.
Ferrara's visibility would need to be considerable for these networks 1) to even know he exists and 2) to be sufficiently aware of the tenets of his position because it has already been clearly and visibly articulated in established sources (for example, the BBC Radio Panel Discussion noted above), and 3) to go a step further and contact him for a statement they deem would be representative of the Traditional Catholic perspective.
As to the question of the neutrality guidelines in WP:NPOV, there doesn't appear to be anything in Ferrara's Wikipedia entry that lacks neutrality. The entry doesn't present anything beyond simple facts concerning his background and is devoid of any bias.
WP:NPOV indicates the following:
As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.
Therefore, considering the question of neutrality, there doesn't appear to be anything objectionable in that regard in Ferrara's Wikipedia article.
If anyone is going to build on the existing article, further evidence of notability can be found in these places:
  • A World Net Daily news bulletin announcing Ferrara’s intervention in the Schiavo case: http://www.wnd.com/2003/09/20594/
As regards this last item, there are hundreds of reports on the Web about this case, as well as the Theresa Schiavo case.
As to the charge of “anti-Semitism,” one can cite to the contrary an article written by Ferrara, cited in numerous places on the Internet, denouncing Holocaust revisionism and rebuking Bishop Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius X for denying that Hitler killed six million Jews, and showing the evidence for the six million number at the Nuremberg trials: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0131-ferrara-triumph_and_tribulation.htm
It would seem to me that any revisions to the article, which I believe should be retained since it meets the necessary criteria, should take note of Ferrara’s strong denunciation of Holocaust revisionism.
As a somewhat inverse indication of notability: one of the contributors here cites Southern Poverty Law Center against Ferrara, but the SPLC itself regards him as one of the main leaders of the Traditionalist movement after its “three-year investigation,” identifying him as the author of one of its main treatises (The Great Façade) and one of its key figures: “A few, such as the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's family, Christopher Ferrara, are even movers and shakers in important right-wing Republican circles.” http://legacysplc.wwwsplcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=719
It would seem contradictory to cite SPLC against Ferrara as evidence of his non-notability, when SPLC bases their attack on Ferrara expressly on his notable leadership role, calling him one of “the new Crusaders.”
If Traditional Catholicism is notable, and has its own entry here, /info/en/?search=Traditionalist_Catholic, then it can be inferred that Ferrara would consequently be considered notable as well, as one of Traditional Catholicism's leaders.
In fact, Wiki cites Ferrara as a notable Traditional Catholic elsewhere in the following article: /info/en/?search=Category:American_Traditionalist_Catholics
If there is an American Traditionalist Catholic more notable than Ferrara, I would not know who that would be.
We are dealing with a figure of considerable public controversy, who has defenders and attackers, and who has himself gone on the attack against extremists in his own movement, as we see with his denunciation of Holocaust revisionism.
Fairness to the subject may well produce both positive and negative information. Let the reader decide. As for notability: that is clearly beyond question. And as to neutrality, there is nothing in his current Wikipedia article beyond a simple statement of facts. Vinceveritas ( talk) 17:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC) — Vinceveritas ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
COMMENT: Tarc, I object to your all too evident personal animus toward the subject in complete disregard for the obvious and numerous facts of record, and your characterizations of objectors as being single purpose editors.
I have been a Traditionalist Catholic since the dawn of this movement nearly 40 years ago. I have seen an entire generation of traditional Catholic apologists come and go; brilliant men whose grasp of the issues at hand provided insights and guidance for many Catholics during decades of upheaval and disorientation in the wake of Vatican II.
I am amply qualified to weigh the importance and notability of Ferrara's contribution during this period of the Catholic Church's history. No matter where I go -- whether it be in the U.S. or Canada, or even in Europe -- I encounter Traditional Catholics (priests and lay persons alike) who not only are amply familiar with Ferrara's literary works and his influence in the current trends of traditional Catholic thought, but also who feel profoundly indebted to him for his ability to convey a better understanding of the doctrinal and pastoral crisis now present in the Catholic Church. He is without a doubt considered not only as an authority, but as an author to whom one can look for a sound grasp of current events in the Catholic Church.
I am also a donor to Wikipedia and use it almost daily as a reference tool on countless topics. The fact that I have decided to contribute only now in this particular instance is 1) there is no other topic on which I feel so amply qualified to weigh in and 2) I cannot bear an injustice -- which is precisely what is attempted here in trying to discount Ferrara as a "non-notable". You are most certainly mistaken. The facts of record are self-evident. Vinceveritas ( talk) 15:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment/weak !vote. The article is dreadful in terms of BLP requirements, almost exclusively reliant on primary and non-independent sources, and failing NPOV. On the other hand, Stalwart and Hobit make a good case that the subject passes the GNG. I don't think anybody reasonably challenges Tarc's position that the article, in its current form, should not be retained. Therefore, keep and stub with an eye to expansion based on independent sourcing to establish notability, rather than from partisan sources on both sides of the debates he is involved in. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 17:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I'm convinced after trawling through the sewer above this comment that Ferrara meets the WP:GNG, but obviously given the controversial nature of his beliefs, the article needs to be closely watched to make sure that the provisions of the WP:BLP policy are adhered to. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 13:17, 19 April 2014 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christopher_Ferrara&oldid=1082608491"