Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

highly promotional article created by the subject itself as evident from the history, and significant edited by staff and interns as evident I've done some simple searching. WP:TNT, WP:PROMO. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NORG. The numerous "media coverage" link drops all amounted to trivial coverage like "says Maria Foscarinis, executive director of the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.", thus failing WP:SIGCOV. Source analysis in article's talk page. Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.    <li></li> </ol>

<ol> <li> The book notes: "In the advocate community, the National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH), the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH), and the National Law Center on Homeless and Povertly (NLCHP) stand out as three of the most important loci of advocate activity and networking. The campaigns and initiatives of organizations such as the NAEH, NCH, and NLCHP represent traditional solutions-focused social advocacy. ... I document this conventional view by analyzing the advocacy efforts of the three major national organizations addressing homelessness today: the National Coalition for the Homeless, the National Alliance to End Homelessness, and the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty." The book notes: "The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP), the third of the major U.S. homeless advocacy organizations, follows the NAEH's lead in focusing on the production of expert knowledge rather than participating in the day-to-day provision of resources to individuals experiencing homelessness. Founded in 1989 by Maria Foscarinis, a lawyer devoted to seeking justice through the courts for people experiencing homelessness, the NLCHP aims 'to prevent and end homelessness by serving as the legal arm of the nationwide movement to end homelessness.' Like the NCH and the NAEH, the NLCHP pursues policy initiatives that seek greater allocation of funds and resources to homeless service providers, as well as public education campaigns aspiring to correct misconceptions about homelessness and publicize little-known truths about its causes and consequences. NLCHP campaigns advocate on behalf of the homeless through legal channels largely by working to reclaim the rights stripped from those who lack private shelter: their programs include initiatives to increase federal resources, ensure homeless children's access to public education, and protect the homeless of all ages from hate crimes, wrongful evictions, and civil-rights violations." The book notes: "What we see in this advocacy initiative is a two-pronged critique of homeless criminalization: the NLCHP opposes antihomeless legislation on the grounds that it violates fundamental rights that should protect all citizens but that are routinely denied to the homeless. But in addition to rights-based advoacy, the NLCHP makes a pragmatic argument as well, contending that antihomeless legislation simply does not work in practice. ... The NLCHP has remained at the forefront of the fight for homeless rights, describing its approach in terms of a dual focus on 'ending the criminalization of homelessness and reducing the burden of ID barriers on homeless people.' ... Approaching homeless advocacy from a human-rights perspective drives the NLCHP's emphasis on contesting unjust legislation and petitioning for new initiatives to recognize and protect the civil rights of those experiencing homelessness. In pursuit of these dual goals, the NLCHP compiles publicly available research reports that document the changing landscape of homeless criminalization in the United States. One such report [discussion of the report]"</li> <li> The book notes on page 41: "The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP), under the leadership of Maria Foscarini, was one of the frontrunners among national organizations to interest itself and develop a human rights approach. NLCHP has built a human rights-to-housing caucus that it brought wholesale to the U.S. Human Rights Network. The caucus has held conferences, worked with the UN Special Rapporteur on Housing to bring attention to gentrification and displacement in Chicago, and organized trainings for hundreds of housing advocates. It's been more difficult for NLCHP to identify litigation opportunities to use human rights, which is telling given that it is primarily a litigation organization. Translating the enthusiasm for economic and social rights from the activist community to the courts may be a very long journey for groups like NLCHP. It seems an equally long journey to translate this enthusiasm to the beltway, and few groups with a legislative focus have taken up the approach. Even NLCHP, when writing policy briefs targeting a beltway audience, makes little or no mentions of human rights." The book notes on page 161: "NLCHP is currently working with the government to implement this Observation. There are difficulties in trying to bridge the gap between the Department of State, which traditionally handles the treaty-reporting process with the treaty bodies, and the domestic agencies such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Department of Justice, which would have a role in implementing the Observations. The chief obstacle is that most of the domestic agencies are not aware of their role in implementation. NLCHP together with others held a joint meeting with the State Department and other agencies in January 2007 to start bridging this divide, and a follow up meeting with the Justice Department two months later. There is still a great deal of education to do, but groups are hopeful that their efforts will begin to build on one another. Additionally, NLCHP is working with congressional members to include language in future housing legilation that would endorse Congress's continuing role in implementing the rights under the treaties. NLCHP, COHRE, and hundreds of other organizations will be participating in a similar shadow reporting process under the CERD treaty in 2007 and 2008, adding yet another layer of accountability on the government for its treaty obligations."</li> <li> The book notes: "Census Accused of Unconstitutionality. The National Law Center on Homeless and Poverty alleged that the methodology of the S-Night count was unconstitutional. In 1992 the Law Center, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the cities of Baltimore and San Francisco, fifteen local homeless organizations, and seven homeless people (the plaintiffs) filed suit in the federal district court in Washington, D.C. They charged the Census Bureau with excluding segments of the homeless population in the 1990 population count by not counting those in hidden areas and by not allocating adequatee funds for S-Night. ... The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty states that its mission is 'to alleviate, ameliorate and end homelessness by serving as the legal arm of the nationwide movement to end homelessness,' and works to protect the rights of homeless people and to end homelessness in America. It uses three main strategies to achieve this goal: impact litigation, policy advoacy, and public education. The Law Center conducts research studies and distributes the results by publishing fact sheets and a monthly newsletter."</li> <li> The book notes: "National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty The mission of the The Homeless: Opposing Viewpoints is to protect the rights of homeless people and to implement solution to end homeless in America. To achieve its mission, the center pursues three main strategies: impact litigation, policy advoacy, and public education. It regards homelessness as an effect of the shortage of affordable housing, insufficient wages, and inadequate social services. The center publishes the monthly newsletter In Just Times."</li> </ol>

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * I think these coverage are insufficient for notability purposes. When you go digging for books that specialize on the topic, you can find things in fair depth about obscure objects and companies that specialize in that discipline. Those things are great for facts and figures; but as far as establishing that an organization is GENRALLY notable, I don't believe that it goes far. A paragraph or two on an organization that operates in the homeless industry in books that specializes in homelessness and social science is not particularly notable. Source #4 by Hurley only has the organization in a resource directory in a directory with other organizations. That's a passing mention. One of the other books giving a paragraph or two of space about NLCHP launching a lawsuit that ended up getting dismissed doesn't go far in building notability. Those sources maybe great to augment things once general interest once organizational general notability has been established in mainstream general interest source with significant WP:AUD. This means a book that focuses on homeless advocacy is of limited interest, because it's important only within the "homeless advocacy" circle. Graywalls (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: Pinging Articles for deletion/The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty participants: and . Cunard (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep appears to pass WP:NONPROFIT based on sources presented by Cunard. Further, mentions in RS's, even if though are passing quotations such as this demonstrate that the center is considered a major organization in its field and when combined with the more in-depth coverage above, is enough to substantiate notability. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * comment "that policy you cited says Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." but nothing suggesting that routine annoucements and mentions in passing can be stacked up. Graywalls (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Allow me to briefly clarify my comment: I'm not suggesting that "routine annoucements and mentions in passing can be stacked up". The sources Cunard presented are, in my opinion, enough to substantiate "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization". The fact that they are routinely quoted in newspapers goes to substantiate the former criteria of NONPROFIT, that "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale" by demonstrating that they do, in fact have national presence. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per analysis of previous users. Various sources have been moved to the talk page, too. Dwaro (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep 's analysis of the sourcing is rather convincing. ——  Serial # 13:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.