Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity


 * 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. (non-admin closure) TheChronium  07:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NORG. The sources provided in the article don't meet WP:SIRS and the article as written is too promotional for mainspace. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 06:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 06:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 06:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 06:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 06:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly a notable organisation; simple searching reveals a multiplicity of RS. Current content is irrelevant in determining notability; AfD is not clean up. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Care to link? Searched and couldn't find any that satisfied SIRS. I found a lot of single sentence mentions but these aren't "significant". Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 18:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Organisation is approaching 30 years of existence (first as Choice USA), a BEFORE process needs to take account of that history. Also, NB SIGCOV: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.


 * FWIW - searching newspapers.com with "Choice USA" + abortion (and country specific USA), I get 1,263 articles. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, these are brief mentions that fail WP:ORGDEPTH and the GNG does not apply to organizations. Organizations require significant coverage moreso than other topics to prevent spam (which this article seems like it may be). The first citation you've provided mentions Choice USA three times, briefly mentioning it as an "affiliated" group of Sister-Song (not significant coverage) and then briefly mentioning an educational event/program it sponsors as well as using it of an example of a pro-choice group that has adopted the phrasing of "reproductive justice". That is the extent of the coverage which fails WP:ORGDEPTH which notes that "sponsorship of events" or using an organization "as an example of a type of company or product being discussed" fails WP:ORGDEPTH. The WaPo article fails for the same reason, as it briefly mentions an event that Choice USA sponsored and an award it gave out.
 * The byline of the New York Times opinion piece you linked literally reads "Kierra Johnson is executive director of Choice USA". An opinion piece written by the executive director of the organization it is about clearly is not an independent source and cannot be used to establish notability. The fourth reference you linked from onlineathens (a local news site, note WP:AUD) doesn't actually cover Choice USA, it covers student activists and mentions briefly that the activists were a part of Choice USA as well as including a comment from Choice USA. There's no inherited notability here, the article has to actually cover the organization itself for the article to "count". There is no significant coverage of Choice USA itself in that article and it doesn't count either.
 * It also doesn't matter if there's 1263 articles that have the words "Choice USA" and "abortion" in them if none of them actually cover Choice USA in depth. A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant and none of the sources you've provided meet SIRS. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 00:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please UCS: a near 30 year old organisation founded by leading US feminists, nationally recognised (that's the point of the NYT comment, it goes towards establishing notability because of its location), a presence on campuses across the USA, mobilising and organising in favour of reproductive rights, undertaking lobbying actions of legislatures. The smallest sampling of the 1200+ articles shows this to be the case. SIGCOV is not a cookie-cutter, it needs to be applied on a case-by-case basis. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment GNG does not apply to organizations ... This conflates the clear difference in the guidelines between NCORP and NONPROFIT, viz. the difference in treatment between commerically-oriented organisations and non-profit organisations Alternate criteria: Organizations are considered notable if they meet one of the following sourcing requirements [...] the general notability guideline Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That section purportedly applies to all organizations, not just non profit ones. At AfD I have generally seen a consensus that GNG doesn't apply to organizations and that NORG takes precedence, or at least the idea that the rules around NORG are a "clarification" of the GNG meaning that the GNG can't take precedence over NORG given that NORG is just a more specific version of the GNG. I'm surprised it's still in the policy and hasn't been changed to update current practice.
 * The subsection on non profit entities loosen the guidelines to allow for primary or tertiary sources to be used to establish notability in addition to secondary ones so long as the organization is national or intl in scale. I don't really see how that has an impact on the sources you've provided here, given that they're all already secondary sources w/r/t URGE (except maybe the opinion piece given that it's written by the executive director of URGE?). Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 23:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep this article is clearly in bad shape, (mostly because of recent edits,) but it should be improved, not deleted. I found several sources from national and regional outlets that discuss the organizations work, and I'm sure I could find more with further digging through the "in the news" section of the organization's website. Niftysquirrel (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree the article needs help, but per the sources others have listed above, it appears to meet notability guidelines. This is a case of an article seeming like it fails cause it's well, a mess, but is actually notable enough. -- Tautomers (T C) 07:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above, there is a good amount of coverage available to pass WP:GNG, although article needs some improvements. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG per available coverage in multiple reliable sources like , , ,  etc. Although, article needs some improvements at the moment right now but present sources surely passes GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2021 (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.