Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Center for Victims of Crime


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 12:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

National Center for Victims of Crime

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Entirely promotional. If an article can be written, this needs to be removed first.  DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete perhaps if needed although I found several links at Books and News so far including where it is they are a leading organization and are "poweful" but perhaps nothing yet convincing for improvements. This may need to be restarted if needed, SwisterTwister   talk  00:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  00:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  00:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  00:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Don't Delete I have added more to the article. Please review. I set up this article after researching for US-based NGOs working for victims of crime (a side research project of mine, I typically research Soviet history). This seems to be a major organization receiving funding from the US Department of Health and Human Services, yet had nothing on Wikipedia. Don't know why that wouldn't warrant an article. Haven't come across any news articles yet to express skepticism or criticism of their activities, else that would be included too.--JonathanGodwin (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The organisation was established in 1985 and appears to be the main such body in the US. It gets over a thousand Google news hits (some outside the US) which seem to be using it as a resource on crime stats and as an expert opinion, especially on stalking. The article needs the promotional content pruning out, but does not seem unsalvageable. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's difficult to get past the promotional aspect of the article.  Sure, some of it can be fixed (starting with the logo that includes a telephone number).  But it's not so easy to get past the fact that ALL of the article's references are first-party sources.  I went to the subject's official web site and randomly sampled five of the 'press clippings' listed in the "Media" section.  All five of these mention the subject only in passing.  Because the article's creator is taking part in this discussion, perhaps he would be kind enough to point us to independent sources that provide an in-depth discussion of the organization itself.  If such sources can be produced, I'll be happy to reconsider my position.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nonprofit founded in 1985 and central organization in its country. Good deal of results among media sources including international publications. I agree with that WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - This article needs work, not deletion.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article needs work and not deletion. This is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * weak Keep Here's a description in a reference book on victims of crime out form a reputable publisher . On the other hand, my search for it on Proquest, while it did turn up enough sources to support notability, was dominated by press releases, and although I did not look at all of the 1,627, a scan of the first few pages revealed mentions and quotes, but nothing that looked like serious profiles or reporting on this organization.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good find on the Encyclopedia. But as I read through the organization's entry, I was struck by the promotional language used in it (e.g., "fosters cutting-edge thinking", "a new vision of justice", etc.).  Because the book was published in 2008, I used the Wayback Machine to check on the web site as it existed in early 2008.  That version is here.  And sure enough, the Encyclopedia entry is merely a regurgitation of various pages from the web site and we should accord it the same low status we would give to an organization's press releases.  When I made my first posting here two weeks ago, I was sincere in my offer to reconsider my position if independent in-depth discussions could be found.  But they haven't been found, and not for lack of looking.  We now need to consider the very real possibility that such sources simply don't exist.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2016 (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.