Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pivot Legal Society


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Pivot Legal Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Local charitable organization that fails the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Kelly hi! 21:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 23:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 23:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 23:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - This passes WP:ORG. Looks like we have an article about one of their projects, but it should probably be merged/redirected into this article, judging by the sources available for each. Pivot looks to take a number of regionally and sometimes nationally significant cases, issues statements that get picked up by the press, and seems to be consulted pretty often about various human rights legal issues. As for sources: Chapter-length legal case study about the organization, The Nation, Global News, Vancouver Courier, Global News, The Province, CBC, The Georgia Straight, Olympic Industry Resistance (book), Selling Sex (book), Huffington Post, Huffington Post, A Thousand Dreams: Vancouver's Downtown Eastside and the Fight for Its Future (book), Canada, Abusing the User (Human Rights Watch report), The Tyee. Also found dozens of links to lesser coverage of their cases, statements on legal issues, quick quotes (a little more than a "brief mention", but not worth including here, I don't think). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - While complaining about Neelix creating a bunch of clean-up work for others in the community, your rapid fire deletion nominations (dozens made within a few minutes of each other that clearly did not follow WP:BEFORE) likewise puts a burden on others (it takes time to look for sources). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per . While not all legal societies are notable, this one appears to be so, based on good sources to prove notability.  Contra Articles_for_deletion/Legal_Aid_Society_of_Orange_County. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Cleanly passes WP:SIGCOV. Another AFD whereby it may have been better for the nominator to do their due diligence with a WP:BEFORE search. Mkdw talk 19:34, 15 November 2015 (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.