Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immigration Advocates Network


 * 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. Will consider userfication for Wikimjb if they request it, so that th article may be improved and then reviewed for a return to the article space. Discuss this with me on my talk page. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Immigration Advocates Network

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD, the prod was deleted after the long list of external links was deleted, but I think the bigger problem is lack of notability. Only 4 Google news hits, and 3 of them are press releases. 145 Google hits, but I still don't see significant, reliable, independent coverage - these are all blogs, press releases, facebook hits, etc. I don't believe the fact that the organisation's website was nominated for, but didn't win, a Webby is enough on its own to prove that the organisation itself is notable. Note that the article's author was blocked for COI for this article, and that the proposed deletion tag was removed by a brand new single purpose account user. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —Dawn Bard (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the cause seems wiki worthy to me, more sources and detail is required before a keep judgment can be made however --  Rmzadeh  ►  18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Regretful delete. Reliable sourcing is not there yet.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * weak KEEP . What about wp:BEFORE? There are source problems here, but the article is only a few days old. I say fact tag it and wait a little while. - JeffJonez (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I reviewed the site in an attempt to find more material for this article, but most of the sections are behind a memberwall. While I support their (seeming) advocacy for immigrants issues, they don't offer enough content to evaluate the potential for future coverage of their efforts. - JeffJonez (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP I don't see how this article is different from others in the legal organizations category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Legal_organizations. With regards to the issue of notability, it is a collaboration of some of the most notable nonprofit legal organizations in the United States, including the ACLU and the National Immigration Law Center, among others. It was also nominated for a Webby Award (is there a more notable general, juried website award?)one year after its launch. It seems to me that you have to look and quality as well as quantity (i.e. number of search results). Even so, the “search” example given above is inaccurate. In addition to press releases, it has been mentioned in the Huffington Post and many other independent online sources. Wikimjb (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference between this and others in the "Legal organisations" category is reliable, independent sources offering significant coverage, per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If you have additional citations, by all means, add them to the article - this AFD can be withdrawn if notability is established. I will say that I was looking at quality more than quantity in checking for sources, though - which is why I disregard all the press releases, blogs and social networking sites. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Included objective, third party references to address sourcing issues. Also added Wikipedia links to partner organizations, nearly half of which are already on Wikipedia, to further substantiate notability. Wikimjb (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the WP:CLUB standard. This article is about a non-commercial organization that is national in scale (it has members from all 50 states in the United States) and the information about the organization and its activities are verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. Wikimjb (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I take this opportunity to point out that the only article that Wikimjb has done anything with is this one? I'm starting to suspect a WP:SPA and possibly a WP:COI Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding was that I was being directly asked to make this article better, albeit in a short period of time (although, please see wp:BEFORE). I have only made edits that directly address issues raised here. Wikimjb (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then let me just ask directly: Are you affiliated with the Immigration Advocates Network in any way and if so, in what manner? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my point. The standard for a conflict of interest per WP:COI is "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." There is no evidence whatsoever of that. There is nothing non-neutral in the article and everything is sourced. The question is whether or not this article meets the WP:CLUB standard, which it clearly does. Wikimjb (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you missied it so I will repeat my question and I would really like you to answer it directly: Are you affiliated with the Immigration Advocates Network in any way and if so, in what manner? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See above. This is no longer civil. It's badgering.     —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimjb (talk • contribs) 15:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What is uncivil about asking for disclosure of a potential COI? I'd rather see someone come clean voluntarily than escalate this to a WP:CHECKUSER request. I've asked twice, politely. Now I'll take the matter elsewhere. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already said that I am affiliated, and that there is no conflict of interest based on the guidelines at WP:COI. I am concerned that your interest in deleting this article is based on your personal views, not the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, which I have consistently references and you have not addressed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.193.171 (talk)  18:17, 2 June 2009
 * Actually, Niteshift36, and I, and others have addressed notability guidelines - we just disagree with you that notability has been established. And, given that you are the one who is affiliated with IAN, have you considered the possibility that your interest in keeping the article is based on your personal views and not the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia?  I'd never heard of them before seeing this Wikipedia article, so I have no preformed opinion, no "personal views" on the subject, which is probably the case for most of the other contributors to this AFD.  Dawn Bard (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed the WP:CLUB standard. You have also not established lack of notability based on the plain language of the Wikipedia guidelines: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." Huffington Post qualifies, as do the other sources, to establish notability. I have referenced guidelines and policies all along for just that reason. Others have referenced "notability" only abstractly. (As for an indication of potential bias, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Niteshift36). Wikimjb (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Be specific. What COI do you see on my user page? There is nothing there related to immigration, attorney's or any of the organizations that make up this network. So if you're going to make this kind of allegation, please do the ethical thing and tell us all exactly what on my user page shows a COI. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't like the implication that anything on Niteshift36's page indicates any sort of bias. Nothing there, or in his edits, suggests that he has anything against the Immigration Advocates Network, just that he doesn't think it meets the notability guidelines for inclusion, so I hope you aren't making the suggestion just because he seems to lean towards the right wing politically.  As to my not addressing WP:CLUB, my original post covered it just fine - from WP:CLUB, "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources" - and one HuffPo article doesn't change my mind that the standard has not been met.  Dawn Bard (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Every sentence of this article is sourced, including IAN's inclusion as a resource on U.S. immigration law by the Harvard Law Library (just added). A Google search for "Immigration Advocates Network" shows nearly 10,000 results (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22immigration+advocates+network%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=), including hundreds of links from organizations, law firms, and other independent, reputable third-party sources linking and commenting on IAN. Obviously one cannot include them all. References to potential bias are just that, highlighting what may be of concern to others reviewing this. It's difficult for me to understand why this article was subjected to such a lightening quick AfD and is being held to seemingly abstract standards. This doesn't seem aligned with the policies, guidance or spirit of Wikipedia or wp:BEFORE, which clearly anticipates that articles will mature and evolve over time. Wikimjb (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, your talk of "potential bias" is not WP:AGF. Second, bias and conflict of interest are not the same. Third, I didn't nominate the article, I simply rendered my opinion. Lastly, for you to think that you know about me based on a couple of user boxes (some of which are in jest) is ridiculous. If I had a box about immigration or the ACLU, you might even be able to spin a justification for your accusation. But simply presuming that you know my opinions on immigration based solely on the fact that I am politically conservative really does little to make it look like you are assuming good faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have responded to Nightshift36 on my talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikimjb). I will not make any more edits to this article and will leave it to others to improve it and decide whether it meets Wikipedia standards.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimjb (talk • contribs) 03:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, first of all, it's good that every sentence is sourced, but nobody who has voted to delete has said they are doing it because they doubted the truth of the article. The sources have been updated slightly, but I'm still not seeing "significant coverage in reliable independent sources".  As to the Google search, if you just click through to the 16th page, you'll see that there are just 154 results when Google eliminates duplicate entries. This is your search, I clicked on your link.  My mind is not changed.  Dawn Bard (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not shown any comparable evidence to justify your position. You have to compare apples to apples. In the Legal organizations category (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Legal_organizations), many of the articles don't include any sources and many have duplicative and non-duplicative (whatever your measure) search results at similar or lower levels than IAN. Same goes for the Legal aid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Legal_aid)and Non-profit organizations based in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Non-profit_organizations_based_in_the_United_States) categories. You also continue to cite "significant coverage in reliable independent sources" as though it isn't an abstract standard, when other concrete guidelines like "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability" exist in the guidelines. Wikimjb (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict - this reply is to Niteshift36) And for what it's worth, the article's original author was blocked indefinitely for using their account only to promote Immigration Advocates Network. Dawn Bard (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, but this article should be judged on its own merits and whether it meets the WP:CLUB standard. Wikimjb (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lack of notability. There are notable orgs involved in it, but their notability doesn't transfer to this. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't the fact that notable organizations collaborate together on a project also notable? See, for example, the Collaboration Prize http://www.thecollaborationprize.org/ Wikimjb (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to me it isn't. Being a Nobel prize winner is notable. If 4 Nobel winners get together for dinner, it might even get mentioned in the news, but it's not an event worthy of its own article. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Both notability and sourcing issues suggest deletion is the best course. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of notability, including general notability. Notability is not transitive: just because some members of the venture are notable doesn't make the venture itself notable. —C.Fred (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is not transitive, but this organization is notable by virtue of the fact that it is a joint project of so many well-known organizations. The notability of the organizations is not being carried over, but the fact that they are cooperating in this way is notable.  The organization has been noted in a whole bunch of web sites.  Some of these may not qualify as reliable sources is a separate question from whether they are indicia of notability.  If the article can't be kept, I think it would be worthwhile to find an appropriate other article into which to merge the content.  Lets' not bog down on the issue of Wikimjb's potential COI.  That's got nothing to do with notability of the article.  If someone has an issue with any particular edits, raise them on the article's talk page.  TJRC (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2009 (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.