Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women in Distress

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. SarahStierch's argument tips this to a no consensus closure. Courcelles 00:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Distress

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

promotional article for local organization DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article certainly needs improving, and the inclusion of further facts and figures about the history of the organisation. However, this domestic violence shelter has been performing an essential purpose in its community for 35 years, surely some kind of record, and it must have saved numerous lives. Those are grounds for notability in my book. Although its style is reminiscent of an information brochure, I really do not think it is appropriate to describe an article about this subject as 'promotional'. It has been neglected due to being an orphan, which is in turn is due to the inexperience of the editor who created it, who asked for help on the talk page and received very little. I have now added it to the WikiProjects for Florida, Crime and Feminism in the hope that this will change. Although there is the problem that anti-domestic violence organisations deliberately avoid publicity and media coverage for obvious reasons, I think it is unlikely that reliable sources cannot be found to improve it. Rubywine . talk 00:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The end of the world is nigh when DGG noms something for deletion. :) But really, it just reads like a PR piece. If notability cannot be established in reliable sources, that's all there is to it. A press release from the Sheriff's office doesn't cut it. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have edited the article. It is more concise and neutral in tone, and contains additional information. I have also added two recent local news items to the article. One of them is an interview with Mary Riedel, the president and CEO of Women In Distress, about state-wide domestic violence trends in Florida. I decided not to include another news item where Riedel was quoted for comment after a doctor was cleared of assault, and another one in a Spanish-language newspaper. It appears that Riedel is somebody that the Florida press will approach for comments about domestic/sexual violence and the crisis in non-profit funding. Rubywine . talk 07:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A tad promotional but what is it hurting? CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOHARM is not a valid reason to retain an article on the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete They appear to do great work. The interview is interesting. But it's notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't follow this. Which bit was the typo? Rubywine . talk 13:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gather that Stuartyeates meant to say "it's not notable". Tarc (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had meant to say "it's not notable"; but with mistakes like that I should probably withdraw my vote. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow this either. Please clarify. It's got multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. WP:NONPROFIT only requires two, and it has more. Rubywine . talk 13:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it really doesn't. One newspaper is an interview with the head of the organization, it isn't really saying much about the group itself. The second newspaper link mentions it in passing only. Tarc (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The third party sources need to be independent of the subject, and need to address (comment on, criticise) the subject directly. There is the concern that this article exists to promote the organisation, and so we demand "independent secondary sources" fairly firmly. A lot of worthy causes try to use Wikipeida to raise their profile. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If you can find one or two good independent sources that discuss the organisation directly, cite it in the first sentence. It looks really bad when the first reference is to the organisation's website. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your replies, and your advice. However I've spent considerable time trying to beef up this article and I've done as much as I possibly can. Clearly I've failed. I have to say that I'm disappointed and shocked that not one person here considered the police press release to be a reliable source, or to provide support for this organisation's notability. [1] "A press release from the Sheriff's office doesn't cut it." according to Tarc. Really? Well, if the content of that press release isn't reliable or notable, I don't know what is. Rubywine . talk 23:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but to my reading, while the sources come close to demonstrating notability, they do not say enough about the organisation. They fall into the category of mere mentions. No independent source describes how the organisation works, or how good (or bad) it is, for example. The independent sources do little more than verify that the organisation exists, they don't demonstrate that anyone has noticed what it does. When I search for information with google, after the organisation's website and wikiedia.org, I start to find references to a similarly named organisation in India. It's entirely possible that there exists local coverage of this organisation, but not enough is provided. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Well, I have found some material on the Broward Sheriff's site which I am looking through. Perhaps some of that will meet your requirements. Rubywine . talk 23:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has been improved on, and can continue to be improved on. Here are a few other links that are usable in improving the article. Even if we have to make the article smaller to keep it, I think it's better than nothing. Many institutions make their own articles, it takes Wikipedians to come along and make them neutral and better. That is what Rubywine is doing.
They might not be internationally or nationally notable, but, they are regionally notable. Hopefully this helps with the press release problem too. Rubywine: Press releases are rarely considered reliable secondary sources, as most of them are self published sources. (There are more threatening, COI, and poor notability articles to focus on than this, but, policy doesn't care about that!) In #wikilove, SarahStierch (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2011 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Women_in_Distress&oldid=1069475817"