Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community Resources for Justice


 * 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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 08:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Community Resources for Justice

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability beyond the local area; hence fails WP:ORG John from Idegon (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- (I should note that this article was created by students at my institution, and further edited by me, a librarian at that institution. We hold the papers of this organization. So just to clarify, I don't work for CRJ, rather a library that holds CRJ's archive.) CRJ and its scholarship is mentioned in plenty of sources that are widely distributed, like national press books or national magazines. I will admit we haven't had time to get those sources into the article itself, but looking at Community Resources for Justice in Google Books, you can see citations to CRJ's work in many nationally published scholarly books. Checking Google Scholar, Community Resources for Justice research is used in articles in national journals as well as in publications in several different states. If you search Goole Scholar for some of CRJ's earlier manifestations (this org is over 130 years old and has changed names many times), like the New England Society for the Suppression of Vice, you'll see NESSV mentioned in multiple histories of criminal justice and the New England area. It seem like the national scholarly literature definitely has evidence of CRJ's impact, as well as evidence of the impact of its earlier manifestations, which I think bolsters the notability case. I realize we still have quite a bit of work in getting these citations into the article! AmandaRR123 (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -- from a Wikipedia perspective, it's important to get those sources into this article. The best way to keep this article is to add those sources during this AfD. An admin might close this AfD as early as 12 April 2014. That admin might keep the AfD open for another five days, if some but not enough Wikipedia quality sources are added. Lentower (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note -- one of the predecessor organizations has an article: Watch and Ward Society. Its role in the idea of "banned in Boston" is well documented.  Magic ♪piano 20:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks, . In that case, since notability is forever, I would have absolutely no objection to closing this and merging the two pages. Now the only question is which should be the title and which should be the redirect? John from Idegon (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence about merging, which is I cast my observation as a note. The Watch and Ward is only one of the predecessor organizations of this one.  Magic ♪piano 15:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Organization appears notable. Article needs WP:Secondary sources that also meet WP:RS. Lentower (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I added a few secondary sources and did some re-writing in (I think) a little more of an encyclopedic tone. Does it look any better? Any other areas to work on? AmandaRR123 (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability established;  sources need to exist but do not need to be in article already, for notability to be clear. -- do  ncr  am  11:55, 14 April 2014 (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.