Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guardians of Divinity

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I don't see a consensus here. That doesn't prevent a future discussion of a Merger to Drag Queen Story Hour#United States or another article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians of Divinity[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Guardians of Divinity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:ORG for an organization to be notable, they must pass WP:SIRS - which requires multiple articles with in depth coverage.

The article currently is a list of events the group has been associated with protesting, because the group is only mentioned in news articles where it's mentioned they were attending. They weren't the only groups there, so it's "and this group was there" throw-away mentions.

There is no in depth coverage of the group in reliable secondary sources to fill out any additional information - who is the group, what is their history, do they have a mission?

This also falls under guidelines for WP:BLP1E - the protests are more notable than the group itself and WP:BLPCRIME - there have been a arrests at protests with no follow up coverage, I can't determine if charges were ever brought against the people arrested. Denaar (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- First of all, the sources already in the article are sufficient to satisfy the GNG. Second, nom's deletion rationales are inapplicable. This is not a BLP, so BLP1E can't possibly apply. Even if it were a BLP it wouldn't apply because multiple events are involved. Also the mentions aren't passing. The NYT article alone has two paragraphs on the background and origin of the group. For the same reason BLPCRIME doesn't apply -- this is not a BLP. Again, even if it were the criterion wouldn't apply since the article doesn't purport to be about the crimes, so why would it matter if there were continuing coverage of them? Central and Adams (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I should have just said it doesn't pass WP:GNG's significant coverage requirement: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Right now, we only have trivial mentions, there are only 66 results in Google News so it's a pretty short list to go through, and there is a video game with the same name and not all those results are related. Denaar (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clarifying your position. Clearly we disagree on whether the mentions are trivial or not, but we'll see what our colleagues think! Central and Adams (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP policy applies to any page, so the nominator's mention of WP:BLPCRIME seems applicable here, because this part of the policy emphasizes the serious consideration needed before including material—in any article that suggests any nonpublic figure has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured; at minimum, this policy consideration seems to emphasize the limited sustained coverage available about the group generally and various arrests reported specifically within the article; I also think it is a relevant consideration during a selective merge process, if that occurs. Beccaynr (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not all of the sources cited are especially useful or reliable, but as the last person said the coverage is more than passing and there are several sources. There may not be much on the group's history or mission, but that's because this seems to be an internet-organized all-purpose community of bullies that happened to give themselves a name, not a proper organization with a cohesive guiding principle. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With some Duckducking I was able to find multiple sources covering the subject for at least two paragraphs each fairly quickly, so I think we should be able to meet WP:GNG here, even if the sources in the article itself were lacking, which, judging by the other !votes, they are not. I would add that having clear aims or a large track record are not requirements for meeting notability guidelines.----Licks-rocks (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively to Drag_Queen_Story_Hour#United_States:
  • I found a June 2023 Institute for Strategic Dialogue report with several paragraphs focused on the group at pp. 11-12, describing them as "The leading group behind anti-drag activity in the state of New York" and comparing the group to other groups
  • The January 2023 Anti-Defamation League report, "Online Amplifiers of Anti-LGBTQ+ Extremism" cited in the article has a one-sentence mention in the Blaze Media section, "At one such event, Stein was seen promoting “Guardians of Divinity” member David Nieves..."
  • The NYT coverage in the article, Foes of Drag Queen Story Hours Invade New York Councilman’s Home (Dec. 20, 2022) notes "at least 141 protests, attacks or “significant threats” against drag events in the United States so far this year, according to a report published by GLAAD" and also discusses "the Guardians of Divinity, a far-right organization" as "believed to be behind many of the protests in New York" and briefly mentions its origin "opposing pandemic-era vaccine and mask mandates," and states the group has "shown up at several Drag Story Hour events in Jackson Heights, Queens, and they also disrupted a community forum in Astoria hosted by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez."
  • A variety of sources in the article focus on the Dec. 2022 event, e.g. Vice (Dec. 20, 2022, does not mention Guardians of Divinity); AMNY (Dec. 20, 2022, does not mention Guardians of Divinity); The Advocate (Dec. 24, 2022), Guardians of Divinity association attributed to a belief by Bottcher); WP:DAILYBEAST (Dec. 28, 2022), citing WP:NYPOST to identify Guardians of Divinity involvement.
  • Other sources in the article do not mention the group, e.g. Astoria Post (Jan. 18, 2023); Patch (Feb. 2, 2023); Upper East Site (Feb 1, 2023).
  • The article includes TimesLedger aka QNS coverage on Dec. 30, 2022, "Proud Boys protest drag story hour event at Jackson Heights Library" and Jewish Telegraphic Agency coverage "These Jews are defending Drag Story Hour against far-right protestors. Here’s why." (Jan 6, 2023) - this type of coverage seems to help support a merge to where protests and counter-protests can be presented with appropriate context, per WP:PAGEDECIDE.
This local organization with coverage that appears to begin in December 2022 may become "nationally well-known" (per WP:CLUB) in the future, but at this time, there does not appear to be sufficient support for a standalone article (e.g. with "national or even international notice" and "widespread attention" as described for non-commercial organizations). Beccaynr (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I voted Keep above, but you make a very convincing argument here, and I would be fine with a merge on these grounds. Wouldn't that first report already qualify as SIGCOV though? It provides a fairly clear-cut summary of all the important information about the group. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first report offers more in-depth coverage than other sources, but also helps identify the group as a local organization and as one of several groups that "began to pivot to more anti-drag activity" since late 2022 - this report also states, "as vaccine mandates and lockdowns fall out of the news cycle (and public attention), anti-drag activity may become a more consistent mobilizing force" and this is part of why I suggest a merge (and redirect to preserve the article history) - the ISD report indicates the group is part of a trend that has broadly received attention and continues to be monitored. From my view, it seems possible that WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the group may exist in the future, but for now, we appear to have more sustained and in-depth coverage of the broader context that also predates coverage of this specific group (See e.g. the Nov. 21 2022 GLAAD report cited by the NYT). Beccaynr (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively for the reasons presented above. As a stand alone topic it's not clear this is notable.
Springee (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge parts to Drag_Queen_Story_Hour#United_States per the information provided above. Attention whore (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing a full article about them, only passing mentions. Mostly about stuff the group has done. I don't see a merge as being valuable. I'd say this is PROMO, but it's neutral in tone and rather helpful as a description, but the group doesn't seem notable, at this time. Should US politics continue down the same path, we'll likely see more from this entity... Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Guardians_of_Divinity&oldid=1172084479"