Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Operation Anti-Vivisection


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment added after close: In response to queries on my talk page, I am adding the following rationale: After checking all of the references that were present in the article, it would appear that one (astrazeneca.com) does not mention NOAV and one other is from NOAV itself. Neither can contribute to establish notability. All other references are brief reports of one single event (i.e., not significant coverage) that occurred very recently (apparently the article was created within 3 days of the newspaper reporting). Concerning the arguments presented in the discussion: The nom does not (as argued lower) state that the article should be deleted because of SPA, SOAPBOX, or ONEEVENT concerns. It is perfectly normal to give a short description of an article's history before presenting the deletion argument, which indeed follows immediately. In what follows, whereas the "delete" arguments are solidly policy-based (especially WP:NOTNEWS), the "keep" arguments resort to wikilawyering ("NOAV is a smaller grassroots animal rights group", "a period of time is any period of time", etc). Together, I found the "keep" arguments unconvincing and agree that creating an article for this organization is too soon. --Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

National Operation Anti-Vivisection

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article created by WP:SPA apparently for WP:SOAPBOX around WP:ONEEVENT. Organization literally just started in October 2014. Secondary source coverage is less than I can count on one hand. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability not established. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:TOOSOON/WP:NOTNEWS. Organization just established, attracted a little attention for one event, but not seeing enough about anything else. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:PROMO WP:NOTNEWS --Jersey92 (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:ORGSIG "smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." As NOAV is a smaller grassroots animal rights group mention in national newspapers it does make NOAV notable in the context of the type of group it is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.143.93 (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're applying that quote in nearly the opposite way it's intended. What it means is that big organizations and small organizations should be treated equally, in a way that doesn't measure their importance by their size. For example, we wouldn't have a standard for a minimum number of members, minimum annual donations/revenue, etc. The only thing Wikipedia cares about is whether the organization has received significant, in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources for more than one event. Could be one person or a million -- the sources are there or they're not. What that quote doesn't mean is that a smaller organization should be held to a lower standard because it's smaller. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 05:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Several appropriate sources are provided. The Daily Mail, Varsity, The Mirror, and The Tab are sufficient to establish notability. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  12:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Article created by WP:SPA apparently for WP:SOAPBOX around WP:ONEEVENT." The author of the article is irrelevant to AfD. The article has the appropriate encyclopedic tone. It is not a soapbox. Even if it was, that would be an indication for clean-up, not deletion. WP:ONEEVENT is explicitly about biographies. The article is about an organization, not an individual person.
 * "Organization literally just started in October 2014." So what?
 * "Secondary source coverage is less than I can count on one hand." WP:GNG states "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." How many secondary sources have you counted? How many sources would you like to see for this article? Axl  ¤  [Talk]  12:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * People often use WP:ONEEVENT mistakenly when they mean either WP:NOTNEWS or WP:GNG, the latter of which begins with the nutshell Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. "over a period of time" being the key idea here. ONEEVENT and NOTNEWS are different applications of the same basic idea -- that notability extends beyond an event or events in a short timeframe. Hence WP:TOOSOON, because this organization will likely be notable in the future, but isn't now. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" NOAV meets this "sufficiently significant attention" ie national newspapers, has been in mentioned in High Court: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/antivivisection-group-offers-cash-to-name-cambridge-animal-testing-lab-workers-9821900.html and "over a period of time" a period of time is any period of time   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.31.117 (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * says the contributor from Cambridge. 86.6.31.117, if you are affiliated with the organization then you should disclose that conflict of interest, please. And if you have commented here under a signed-in account, please disclose that as well. thanks Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * and "over a period of time" a period of time is any period of time -- Well, of course that's not what that statement means or it would be meaningless. These policy pages peppered throughout this discussion stem from core Wikipedia/encyclopedia principles, so it's not like a court of law where the letter of the law can win a case (not that you were necessarily trying to do so). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:TOOSOON. may never be notable for a period of time, or may be.  we have no WP:CRYSTALBALL.  But not now. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: The relevant guideline at WP:ORG says A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. The article appears to meet this standard. In contrast, the three sentences in the nomination fail to make a convincing case for the articles deletion: WP:SPA is an essay that does not recommend automatic deletion of articles written by newcomers (it actually references the guideline WP:BITE instead), age of the organization is not mentioned as a criterion at WP:ORG, and a minimum source count of five is not supported by our notability guidelines. VQuakr (talk) 03:21, 29 October 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.