Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Counsel


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. mainly because those advocating Keep did the legwork and went out, located sources and made persuasive arguments. Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Public Counsel
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:SPIP and with no secondary sources, it is a cut and dry case of WP:FAILORG Let&#39;srun (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: To discuss BD2412's additions Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  02:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations,  and California. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Question": Did the nominator do WP:BEFORE? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes Let&#39;srun (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Acts as a brochure article, advertising services. UPE. No significant references and never been referenced since it was created. Fails WP:NCORP, fails WP:SIGCOV.    scope_creep Talk  20:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Good grief; this is a source-free advertising brochure. None of the assertions made in the article are verified or sourced, and I suspect COI; it was created by a SPA not only with no other edits, but where their user page is tagged with  .  The article was created fourteen years ago, has been notability tagged for four, and it's high time we pitched it.   Ravenswing      06:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously under-referenced, but also obviously notable on its face. Almost certainly there are good refs out there, Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. A cursory newspapers.com search turns up numerous relevant hits, including this one, which I have just added to the article. BD2412  T 02:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Draftify and fix the advertisements.  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 03:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article needs some cleanup, but it's not that bad from a promo perspective, especially after the opening sentence was improved recently. A few more minor phrase updates and we'll have a decent start. Here's some more coverage, too: A review of legal services: Congressional testimony from multiple individuals who did not seem to be affiliated:  &mdash;siro&chi;o 05:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've given it a bit of a copyedit and added a bit of information from references above. &mdash;siro&chi;o 06:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Draftify - surprisingly was not able to find as many sources for this subject as expected, and I actually think coverage discussed above is not really enough. Seems kind of in limbo, I would move this to draft space for any potential improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Visviva's additional findings. Does anyone know why there is mainly coverage from decades ago but not much recently though? - Indefensible (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per BD2412 and siroxo. Note that searching is made rather difficult here by the organization's obnoxiously generic choice of name. But here is another source, a 1980 LA Times piece on the establishment of the program: p1, p7. There also seem to be a lot of sources on HeinOnline, e.g. the search snippet for this law review article by Ted Kennedy indicates that it likely contains some discussion of the org (. . . fourteen months, Public Counsel has provided 350 lawyers to serve needy clients, and nearly $2 million worth of legal skills.). (Of course that could turn out to just be a quote from a press release or something, but maybe someone with access can check it out.) So I'd say: (a) I believe the GNG is in fact met with the sources we actually have in hand, which provide significant, independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources; and (b) there is ample reason to believe that additional sources exist that would extinguish any remaining doubt on (a). -- Visviva (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a notable legal organization in Los Angeles legal aid community. Jumplike23 (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. 800+ Google hits in the Los Angeles Times archives, 50+ Google hits in the Orange County Register archives. Even if a few of these refer to unrelated, similarly named organizations (there is a group called "Public Counsel Opportunity Under Law" in Michigan and the Massachusetts Committee for Public Counsel Services in Massachusetts), there are clearly significant coverage out there. Neutralitytalk 00:36, 15 July 2023 (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.