Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Harvilicz


 * 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 delete. Tone 18:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Annie Harvilicz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not-notable subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. I did an evaluation of all 12 citations for the purpose of establishing (or not) this subject's notability. My results are posted at Talk:Annie Harvilicz. My conclusion was that this subject fails the WP:BASIC notability tests. Normal Op (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: Article reads somewhat promotional. As researched, there is no substantial notability in the references. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The closest thing to notability I see here is a very brief mention in the LA Times. I did not find anything else in my own quick search. I would not be as quick to dismiss some of the sources as Normal Op is in their useful notability evaluation, but I still don't see anything that constitutes WP:BASIC. I am curious if Dogsforlife1001 has input. Jmill1806 (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not so sure - Keep: Some coverage (one-line mentions) What do we know about the Animal Wellness Foundation other than Dr. Harvilicz's role as its founder? Is that the AWF that goaded the People's Republic of China to reclassify dogs and to ban the eating of dogs' tissues? We know that Wayne Pacelle, former President of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), is involved (reputedly as the founder of AWF's activist wing, AWA, a PAC; however, he is also called 'a volunteer), which may have been able to promote a shift in food procurement policy in San Francisco.   Is that Animal Wellness Foundation itself significant?  It seems that AWF and AWA have been quite busy doing many (seemily uncoordinated) things (where there is much to do), and that there is much more where there is a will to search for it. Then, of course, there are efforts of her activist organizations.      It seems that AWF and AWA have been quite busy doing many (seemily uncoordinated) things (where there is much to do), and that there is much more where there is a will to search for it. MaynardClark (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)MaynardClark (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Don't confuse the various organizations. AWF is the charitable arm of Harvilicz's veterinary practice, like when someone cannot pay for veterinary care. AWA is a new PAC founded by animal rights person Wayne Pacelle. Though Harvilicz may be a board member of AWA (per AWA's website), neither she nor her AFW can "inherit notability" from being a board member of something else that MAY be notable. This is an AfD about Harvilicz, not Pacelle, not AWA-the-PAC, and not really AFW (although that's debatable since it's covered in Harvilicz's article and Harvilicz's creation). Now your LINKSPAM/REFBOMB is of poor quality and I'm not going to check ALL of your citations. I checked several, and found only ONE that even mentioned Harvilicz's name, and that was just a single quote (not an article about Harvilicz). Most were about AWA and not AWF. I notice that often when AWA is mentioned, the two organizations are mentioned together ("AWA and AWF") but those articles do NOT cover AWF, they just cover AWA activity. So perhaps AWF is hoping to ride the coat tails of AWA, but per Wikipedia policy WP:INHERITORG, notability cannot be inherited — a person doesn't inherit notability for being associated with an organization, an org doesn't inherit notability by having a well-known person associated with it, and a second org doesn't inherit notability from a first org just because it's associated with it. Either Harvilicz and/or Animal Wellness FOUNDATION must stand on its own and get its own coverage (not brief mentions, either) or its just not notable. MaynardClark, you really need to start checking your citations before link-spamming/ref-bombing irrelevant stuff and wasting other editor's time. You've been plunking down heaps of links in the few articles we've crossed paths on lately. And please start reading Wikipedia policy. Normal Op (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good distinction. However, in my notes, I posed the question about whether the Foundation itself is notable.  In that spirit, note the coverage of AWF.  Their own websites make claims for Harvilicz's direct involvement with all those efforts, but we want not to include self-reporting.  But my response was, 'Not so sure - Keep' (not merely 'Keep') because it seemed that there was reason to do more inquiry (not merely to claim that there is nothing out there).  Other editors' (and my) 'busy times' are not the best time periods for taking on a fight (but why do I care?).  Well, AWF and AWA are interesting, but to your point, a number of other persons are out there doing the work while veterinary practice continues. Hmmm. I did notice the coverage by smaller newspapers (e.g. Norman, Oklahoma). Surely merely attending the 25th Anniversary Genesis Awards ceremony in 2011 (and having several photos taken with celebrities) is not in itself notable. 'Dr. Harvilicz is a member of the AWF/AWA National Veterinary Council...' (her own organization). MaynardClark (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't re-edit older AfD discussion comments! I am NOT going to re-read your (substantially changed) lengthy comment (the one above mine) in order to figure out what is different. Always add new content below. Use strike-out if you want to delete something. Normal Op (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete She is not notable; the article is about the individual.  DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I am sympathetic to the other topics raised by MaynardClark, but I'm not seeing a plausible way in which they make Annie Harvilicz herself notable. My vote is still delete. Jmill1806 (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I suspect that the decision will be 'delete' (in part because of life factors that have prevented her from doing more at her young age. MaynardClark (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution too. It would be nice to reconsider this in the future if the relevant factors for WP:GNG change for the subject. Jmill1806 (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether or not the topic of China's claimed ban or regulation of dog eating deserves a mention of the sources of social influence on that policy. If so, was AWA/AWF's claimed role in that change sufficiently notable to deserve a mention in an article on the topic? MaynardClark (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said previously on this page, AWA is the PAC, and AWF (not a PAC) is riding their coattails. The article is about PAC-related activities. The article doesn't mention Harvilicz and only mentions AWF in passing which doesn't contribute towards notability. Normal Op (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.