Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel


 * 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. In reviewing the article, its references and the comments put forth in this discussion, it is clear that the article is far removed from the requirements spelled out in WP:ORG. I would have no difficulty in welcoming the subject back in the future if it is shown to meet WP:ORG standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel

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

No assertion of nobility. SGGH ping! 16:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I'm allowed to make a comment on this page, so I apologize if that's the case. I created this page and I got notice on my discussion page that the article is being nominated for deletion and there was a link to this page. The reasons for deletion is somewhat cryptic so I'm not sure what to make of it. Granted, the Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel is not the most "notable" organization out there, but it is somewhat notable. The basic structure of the organization had been around for some 20 years, although under under different names and different directors. Sullivan County is a relatively poor county and the vast majority of criminal defendants in the county are represented by the Legal Aid Panel. Thus, the Panel is quite notable within the county and somewhat notable in the county's environs. I don't know if this "asserts notability", but I hope it does. Originally I planned on making a more comprehensive article on the organization, but I lost patience after a while. The article was being prepared at User:Pink_Bull/Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel. I removed large parts of content before I created the article for real (for the lack of a scientific term) because I was not happy with the way the article was going and was hoping that by making a minimal article other more experienced editors can help with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink Bull (talk • contribs) 17:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete like other local organizations--unless thee is somewhere to merge. DGG (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  18:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  18:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If I can just add one more point in response to the comment above: An impression might be given off that we are dealing with some small non-for profit legal organization. Although this is partly true, the organization is neither small nor just another legal organization. As governments are required by law to provide legal services to indigent criminal defendants, public defenders or legal aid officers take on a quasi-governmental role. To this end, these type of organizations are on par with District Attorney offices of a given jurisdiction. The point is strengthened where - like in Sullivan County - the vast majority of criminal defendants are indigent. There are multiple articles about District Attorney offices and I see no sense in distinguishing between DA offices and their opposing party, legal aid organizations.  Moreover, there are other articles on Wikipedia about legal aid organizations.  Some examples include, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc., Arkansas Legal Services Partnership, and Downtown Legal Services. Other organizations can be seen at Category:Legal aid. Sincerely,   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink Bull (talk • contribs) 21:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This AFD discussion is for this article, not others. Articles stand and fall on their own merits.  And Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly, as you are erroneously doing.  Your subjective opinion of an organization's "worth" has nothing to do with whether it satisfies our criteria for having an article.  Uncle G (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if that's how my position was understood. I was trying to explain why the organization is notable in that geographic area, not why I consider it to be notable. I just added another source to the article, which I hope would now cause the article to satisfy all notability requirements. Sincerely,Pink Bull--Pink Bull (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As outlined above, this organization meets the criteria set forth in Org. It is an important and notable quasi-governmental organization that has been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources.--Pink Bull (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:N and in particular, WP:ORG completely. Google news returned no hits that's actually related (it returned an unrelated hit). Google for the precise term returned 79 hits. Most of the legal aid services Pink Bull cited are state-wide and therefore inapposite. I just prodded Downtown Legal Services which also fails WP:ORG entirely. In addition, see WP:OTHERSTUFF.Tim Song (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no objective need to delete this article and it seems pointless to exclude a reference point for and hopefully more information about an organisation with an important function at US County level. The issue of legal aid provision in poor communities is of wider interest - it's currently the subject of controversy in the UK.  The Executive Director of the Panel is the chairman of the county's bar association, suggesting that the organisation is one of some local significance. Opbeith (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You've entirely failed to counter the argument that no in depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources exists. You have also erroneously conflated notability and significance.  Notability is not fame nor importance.  If you want to make an argument that actually holds water and that is in accordance with our policies and guidelines, cite multiple independent reliable sources that document this subject in depth.  The source that you've cited doesn't actually document this subject at all, I note.  Sources!  Sources!  Sources!  Uncle G (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to get hysterically confrontational. Rules are there for guidance with a view to achieving a desirable outcome.  Wikipedia administrators' interventions enforce a rigid and uncompromising consistency aimed at ensuring an arm's length relationship from the dangerously controversial notions of truth and reality, but you might have the courtesy to accept that other people's views are advanced in good faith in the attempt to seek some sort of negotiated engagement with the real world.  Please don't scream. Opbeith (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:ORG. These types of orgs exist everywhere. Nothing making this one look notable compared to them. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I stand by my previous vote. County-level legal aid is simply not notable enough absent some special factor that are missing here. Issues over legal aid do not require keeping every legal aid-related article. And simple local significance does not satisfy WP:N - see WP:CLUB. Tim Song (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Pink Bull. --Kurdo777 (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Pink Bull & Opbeith. Stellarkid (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Coverage in reliable sources is lacking, and as such, fails to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:22, 29 July 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.