Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Society for Human Life


 * 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   no consensus. Even discarding the SPAs, there just isn't enough of a consensus here to support a keep or a merge. A new merge discussion can be opened at any time though. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Virginia Society for Human Life

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable state affiliate, nearly all mentions in reliable sources are routine announcements (paid listings?) and trivial pull-quotes in articles that are about events. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge/redirect to National Right to Life Committee (an appropriate destination because this is a state affiliate of that organization). This organization seems to be associated with several notable topics, but I don't see evidence of notability independent of those topics -- and notability is not inherited. The article content that is actually about the organization is self-sourced or sourced to dead URLs. The article cites a Washington Post article about Virginia's abortion law, but it turns out that this organization is not mentioned in the article (at least not that I can find). The article also has some third-party content about a federal lawsuit that the organization filed; the decision in the case may be notable in the context of US law for nonprofit organizations, but this organization appears to have had little (if any) role in the decision. Additionally, my Google search finds indications that this organization endorsed certain political candidates -- some of the candidates and elections are undoubtedly notable, but this organization's endorsements of those candidates don't make the organization notable. Notability is not inherited, and this organization lacks notability of its own. --Orlady (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I added "merge" to my !vote. I note that this organization is already briefly mentioned in the proposed destination article. --Orlady (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been alleged on this page (in a template that has been deleted) that my comments here were canvassed. Lest the accusation should arise again, let me say that this is an absurd allegation with no basis. As best I can recall, I noticed this brand-new AFD when I was reviewing the background behind a contentious discussion on one of the Administrator's Noticeboards, looked into it, and commented. --Orlady (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable enough for the NYT at, , , . thus passing my "If the NYT mentions a non-NY organization in a non-trivial way in multiple articles, the organization is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia.   mentioned as the primary plaintiff in a major legal case in an RS book.   a minor RS book mention.   In fact, it appears to be in several hundred book mentions.   shows the importance of the law case.  In short - easily passes the Wikipedia notability guidelines, and the number of sources well ought to have been noted by the persons proposing deletion.  It is stated in multiple sources to be the first such group, which does not make it a "non-notable state affiliate". Questia finds five books which are RS for the purposes of Wikipedia, and a score of articles mentioning the group. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See, I have access to those NYT sources, and I think it's extremely disingenuous of you to claim that a reference is non-trivial when most other users can't check for themselves. Users interested in those sources should know that Collect evidently considers a one-sentence mention in a longer article on something else "non-trivial". Most would disagree. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Um -- do you really think this page is designed for personal attacks? Such argumentation rather weakens your case entirely, and reduces the opinion others might have of you.  I provided the proper links, and trust that others actually have mouses on their computers to see the articles.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this page is designed for the discussion of the topic and the sources, and since the sources are paywalled, it's not easy for most users to tell that you have an extremely idiosyncratic definition of "non-trivial." Now they know, and we can all proceed with more information. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And calling someone "extremely disingenuous" is what then? Cream cheese? That sort of comment is a comment on the editor, and not on the sources.  Meanwhile, no one disputes now that it [asses GNG with flying colours.   And I would note that there are literally thousands of refs using the New York Times, and that since no one would doubt that it is a "reliable source" your accusation that I deliberately shoes a "paywalled" source is risible.  I would also note that the book sources, which you seem to elide, are not "paywalled."  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Breathe. Keep calm. I dispute that it passes GNG, since I have a definition of "non-trivial coverage" that excludes single sentences - yes, a single sentence is trivial even in a reliable source like the NYT or a scholarly book. I think we could all have saved some time if you'd simply explained in your comment that you have this unusual view of "non-trivial," so that no one would wrongly assume that a source they couldn't personally access did in fact contain significant coverage of the group. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I note you did not take back your personal attack on me for being "extremely disingenuous" for daring to use The New York Times as a source. "VSHL" is at the center of a major legal case - and your apparent argument is that Marbury would not be "notable enough."  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources had given VSHL the amount of coverage they give Marbury (in what is, understatement, a more important case), this AFD wouldn't exist. There are any number of parties in much, much more important cases who don't have articles because the sourcing isn't there - Orlady's mention of WP:NOTINHERITED is relevant. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, what I learned about this organization from those four New York Times references was that: (1) this organization, described as "Roman Catholic-oriented", had testified against passage of a liberalized abortion law that Virginia enacted in 1970 and (2) in 1980 this organization asked the Virginia state government and the U.S. federal government to prevent the opening of the first U.S. in-vitro fertilization clinic, but were told "no". (Three of the articles are about the second item.) --Orlady (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per references noted above; passes WP:GNG. StAnselm (talk)23:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect per WP:NGO. It's a local organization and while we can confirm it exists and it may meet GNG, it isn't recommended.  Lack of widespread coverage raises the specter of effectively evaluating WP:UNDUE, a very important consideration when dealing with activist organizations.  Merging it to the court case might make sense if that's the major cause of notability and it's a WP:BLP1Eish situation.166.147.88.49 (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC) — 166.147.88.49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep per Collect's sound analysis. The organization predates the national group it later affiliated with and has notability independent of its association with that group. Oldest organization of its type and plaintiff in important legal case are distinct claims of notability, so the BIO1E analogy is inapposite. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Collect.  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Collect, StAnselm and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (What Wikipedia needs is a rule that prohibits agenda-driven editors from deleting, or nominating for deletion, articles about people or organizations they don't like.)  --108.45.72.196 (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * *Comment, no, what Wikipedia needs is a rule that prohibits pointless "per nom" votes being used in a deletion discussion— all it has instead is this guideline. Are you familiar with these guidelines? Also: I don't believe the nominator's reason for nominating for deletion was "I don't like it"— that would have been a violation of this guideline, which the nominator probably read.    KDS 4444   Talk  06:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete (but be sure not to salt) - First, the article creator's account has been suspended indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Article should have been speedily deleted per CSD:G5 and not even discussed here (but I guess that didn't happen for whatever reason, and it is no matter now). Second, I have gone over all of the references included in the actual article— all have either failed verification, are primary sources, are dead links, or say nothing about the organization in question (see my tags).  It's almost like the person who added them wanted this article to get nominated for deletion.  If other editors have other published third-party sources that they would like to add to the article, I would strongly encourage them to do so, paywall or no, so that the article can stand a chance at survival— and if you aren't willing to add them to the article, then... then why are you here?  I am moving for deletion, but I believe that the article's subject may some day meet the criteria for notability (if it does not already)— the article's title should be readily available for an article if/ when that day comes, so I recommend: be sure not to salt if deleted (no one is proposing that, I know, but just as a statement).   KDS 4444   Talk  05:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI to User:KDS4444, CSD:G5 calls for deletion only if the creation of the article creation was a violation of the user's block or ban. --Orlady (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge. This is basically a state chapter of a national organisation. It being mentioned here and there in sources isn't, therefore, enough for it to get a standalone article. Just the same as we don't normally need articles for individual Scout troops, branches of Starbucks etc etc. Formerip (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to National Right to Life Committee per Formerip's analysis (and per Orlady, too). It appears the most reasonable outcome beyond the opposite agendas and when a compromise is so easy, I don't see the need to fight. Cavarrone 05:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep it's a weak article and needs a lot of work but I don't think that's a reason for deletion. A lot of the "delete" arguments seem to me to be pointing out the weaknesses in/problems with the article and don't really put forward a sensible case for deletion.  Tigerboy1966  00:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It is historically significant as it is the Oldest Right to Life Organization in the Country according to several sources including the Standard News Wire. It needs more work but that does not constitute a reason to remove it. It is also notable given all the coverage it receive in the press and legislative activities it is involved in Virginia. It is also a well known organization in Virginia. The article is also close to being a C class article now.208.54.40.177 (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC) — 208.54.40.177 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 208.54.40.177 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "VSHL says, via a press release, that VSHL is important" is not a strong case for notability. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 08:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Additional refs:
 * Lawsuit planned to stop clinic opening by VSHL.
 * VSHL intervened in a case involving a newborn baby.
 * VSHL first state-wide organization formed.
 * VSHL first state-wide organization formed.
 * VSHL first state-wide organization formed.
 * Significance in Virginia politics.
 * Virginia the birthplace of the religious right.
 * How VSHL vets canidiates.
 * Use of negative campaign ads in Virginia gubernatorial race.
 * On of first anti-abortion groups founded, in 1966.
 * Opposition to test-tube babies.
 * Opposition to test-tube babies in Massachusetts.
 * Intervention in newborn baby case.
 * These are only a few of the literally hundreds of sources available for this organization. It is clearly notable for a number of reasons, not the least of which is widespread coverage in newspapers and books.  I didn't even have to get into Hein, EBSCO, Lexis, etc., to find these.  AGF, I can only conclude that  failed to conduct her WP:BEFORE checks for sources, as I know that she would not nominate a notable subject for deletion on political viewpoint grounds.  I'm sure that she will exercise greater care in the future.   GregJackP   Boomer!   12:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But showing that there are sources, particularly when those sources are not primarily about the topic, is not always enough for a standalone article. For example, there are plenty of sources on Pippa Middleton's bum. However, we do not have an article about it. Instead, we have one article covering all the constituent parts of Pippa Middleton. What I am not seeing is any source that indicates that a separate article is needed in this case, as opposed to putting whatever encylopaedic information there may be in the broader National Right to Life Committee article. Formerip (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally, these simply do not show notability if they don't have significant coverage because that's not how our notability guideline works. "Among other social conservative groups that have been active in the state are Concerned Women for America, the Virginia Society for Human Life, and the Madison Project." (in several sources) "'People just don't understand what's involved,' says Sugarman, of attempts by the Virginia Society for Human Life to have prosecuted whoever ordered food withhheld from the Norfolk baby." That's the caliber of coverage in these. It's not a failure of WP:BEFORE, it's a demonstration that I understand our notability policies and that "It gets a lot of Google hits" isn't one of them. (Being first doesn't mean being significant if the sources don't a. give it any coverage or b. say that it influenced the formation or activities of other groups.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that many of these sources have significant coverage of VSHL. When an organization is covered by multiple national newspapers (Pittsburgh, USA Today, Boston), internationally (Calgary, Ottawa) and other media (Fox, NPR), law review articles, etc., on multiple issues (oldest state org, test-tube babies, political activism, free speech lawsuit, etc.).  Unless, of course, you are arguing that this heightened standard that you are proposing, over and above GNG is applicable to all articles, including those on the other side of the political spectrum.  FormerIP's argument is disingenuous, as VSHL is an affiliate, not a "branch" of the national committee.  To use that logic would require that all NFL team articles be merged into the main NFL article.  Roscelese, like I said, it's either a failure of WP:BEFORE or it approaches WP:PUSH.  GregJackP   Boomer!   19:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Significant coverage" ("more than a trivial mention") is hardly a "heightened standard"; it's part of the general notability guideline. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct. Since there is significant coverage in several that were mentioned, which you are erroneously claiming is merely a trivial mention, you are in fact asking for a heightened standard.  For example, 35 Ind. L. Rev. 769 discusses both VSHL and Buckley, and the entire article covers the issues brought up by VSHL.  190 A.L.R. Fed. 169, 13B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3532.5 (3d ed.), and 2002 Utah L. Rev. 381 covers it in depth also, perhaps because VSHL has been involved in two highly reported free speech & campaign law cases.   GregJackP   Boomer!   21:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the Indiana Law Review article right now and it does not discuss the group at all (it briefly quotes the case). If you believe that the case is sufficiently notable to support an article, I encourage you to create an article on it. But I've already pointed out that being a party to a notable case does not automatically confer notability; inheritance doesn't work that way, and trying to claim that a single sentence or less is non-trivial coverage because you want the article to exist for other reasons isn't consistent with Wikipedia policy or practice. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I remain baffled by the argument that coverage of a group's activities is not coverage of the group. It reminds me of the argument that Professor So-and-so is not notable because his work is covered in great detail rather than his personal life. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Cases such as this often ultimately have very little to do with the actions of a party involved. Sometimes is just works out that way because our court system allows groups who aren't affected by a situation to file suit anyway. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 12:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That is completely and totally incorrect. In federal courts, the plaintiff must establish standing in order to proceed. That is the reason SCOTUS kicked out the Prop 8 case, is that the plaintiffs did not have standing to proceed. In both of the VSHL cases, standing was present. I can recommend some reading on standing and justiciability, if you would actually like to learn about the issues involved in a court exercising jurisdiction over a case. GregJackP  Boomer!   13:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm more than familiar with the concept of standing. However, standing doesn't, in fact, always indicate that the plaintiff is central to the situation (to sum up the case in a sentence: FEC regs prohibited 501(c)(3)s from doing something VSHL wanted to do, the district court enjoined the rule generally). I was hoping to sum up briefly, for editors who might not be familiar with the courts, that unlike, say, criminal courts or popular court TV shows, such cases aren't decided merely on the personal merits of the parties - VSHL happened to be the plaintiff, but was ultimately incidental to the decision - however, "affected by the situation" was poor wording on my part, and did give the wrong impression of what I was trying to convey. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No prob - I'm sometimes a bit on the anal retentive side on verbiage dealing with legal process (which is interesting because I often choose poor wording myself).  GregJackP   Boomer!   14:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * KEEP GregJackP has made sound arguments to include notability and has shown strong arguments for such. He has also pointed to a likely failure to conduct a sufficient WP:BEFORE. The possibility of a WP:PUSH by the initiator is also illustrated and reading the arguments made by the initiator I second that possibility. The initiator has failed to logically address these points with sound arguments. Therefore the stronger and sound arguments for keeping the article should prevail. I am glad the info in the article was there for me and was surprised to see someone wanted to delete it. That is a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.11.184 (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC) — 172.56.11.184 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * KEEP Obvious example of someone with an axe to grind. A case of someone attempting to remove something because their views cloud good judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.248.116.243 (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC) — 204.248.116.243 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep It's definitively a notable organization. I will also point https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&oldid=565972868 to show that Roscelese has been accused of promoting an agenda by others and I would agree that their seems to be a definite trend to delete organizations opposed to abortion on Roscelese's part. I would also question the collaboration on the MOMS article between Roscelese and KDS4444 on Sept 5 2013 and the arrival of KDS4444 immediately afterwards to suggest deleting VSHL as evidence of a possible outside canvass between them.208.54.40.153 (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC) — 208.54.40.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Gosh, article collaboration, how horrible! If KDS chooses to follow my edits for non-harassment purposes, it is no concern of mine, and I've removed your claims of canvassing, as you're obviously just trying to smear users you disagree with. ? Really? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Passing mentions, PR releases, routine "Group X showed up to oppose Y today" coverage for the actual state chapter, nothing more. Not opposed to a redirect to the parent organization as long as there is some mention of this state branch in the main article. Tarc (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Collect/WP:GNG.--v/r - TP 20:19, 12 September 2013 (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.