Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health Liberation Now!

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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Health Liberation Now!

[edit]

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

Health Liberation Now! (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)

Fails WP:NGO#2 (and WP:GNG, which requires the same amount of coverage). A listing of sources in the article is included below:

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Extra* Magazine Yes I think so Yes Why not? Yes Article is about the NGO ✔ Yes
NBC News Yes NBC News is an independent newsorg Yes NBC News is WP:GREL No The article includes quotes from a founder of the group, but only provides trivial mentions of the group itself. ✘ No
Time Yes Time is and independent newsorg Yes Time is generally reliable No Coverage of HLN itself in the source is trivial. ✘ No
Vice News Yes Vice News (and the author of the piece) seem independent of HLN ~ Vice news is WP:MREL at WP:RSP. No Coverage of HLN itself in the source is trivial, describing the group in two sentences and including a verbatim quote from an employee. ✘ No
The Independent Yes The Independent is an independent NEWSORG Yes The Independent is WP:GREL at RSP No HLN is only mentioned in passing as the employer of someone quoted in the story. ✘ No
Health Liberation Now! (1) No HLN is not independent of itself. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF ? Moot as clearly non-independent. ✘ No
Health Liberation Now! (2) No HLN is not independent of itself. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF ? Moot as clearly non-independent. ✘ No
Health Liberation Now! (3) No HLN is not independent of itself. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF ? Moot as clearly non-independent. ✘ No
Health Liberation Now! (4) No HLN is not independent of itself. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF ? Moot as clearly non-independent. ✘ No
Texas Observer Yes Why not? ~ Seems to be an established WP:NEWSORG, but the language of the piece indicates that this is an opinion piece rather than a news piece. No Leveille is quoted twice, but HLN itself is mentioned only in two sentences. ✘ No
Health Liberation Now! (5) No HLN is not independent of itself. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF ? Moot as clearly non-independent. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Additionally, I was unable to find additional significant coverage of this website after conducting an online search. I did turn up some sources that trivially mention it, such as a story in the LA Blade that basically regurgitates an NBC News story, but trivial coverage in other sources doesn't move the needle on SIGGOV. I can't easily find a place to redirect this to, so I am nominating it for deletion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To start and provide context, there was a pre-existing discussion at User talk:MaxnaCarta#NPP of Health Liberation Now!.
To sum up the arguments, Xtra Magazine is WP:SIRS coverage of the organization.
Though the Independent only mentions "Health Liberation Now!" once, they are doing an depth interview with the director of the organization about his research, and the article frequently links to the site as the location of such research. On the face it looks like a passing mention but it's an article about Health Liberation Now's research and activities. Therefore that meets Significant Coverage and gives us another WP:SIRS source.
The Texas Observer article is news rather than opinion, as it is an independent source doing an investigation into the effects of the NYT article and focuses on facts about the case. More than that, it focuses on a controversy HLN was involved in and describes their involvement. Granted it doesn't meet the first S in SIRS but it meets the rest and is a strong source in and of itself.
Just to clarify, NBC news only quotes Leveille but does get statements from both founders.
In short we have two sources meeting WP:SIRS and one describing in-depth a controversy the organization was involved in. Therefore it meet both WP:GNG and WP:NGO. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTranarchist: Just so I have this clear, we're in agreement on Xtra Magazine being a SIRS source, and we agree that The Texas Observer does not provide significant coverage of the website (i.e. doesn't meet the first S in SIRS), correct? With respect to the coverage in The Texas Observer, we only disagree on whether it's a news vs opinion piece? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, with respect, the source from The Independent seems to indeed be giving coverage of Leveille and their own activities, but I'm really not seeing this as coverage of the organization itself. It's framed as something that's on the side (i.e. Leveille, who has since formed a new advocacy group called Health Liberation Now), rather than the NGO itself receiving coverage. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Texas Observer is more news than opinion as it gives a factual account of what happened and invites expert sources to weigh in. As far as I can tell, they don't have an opinion section, just news separated into multiple categories (in this case, the "Civil Rights" one).
In terms of the Independent, the fact the research they refer to was done by the founder of HLN and published in HLN, which they link to extensively when referring to her research, makes it (in my eyes at least) coverage of the activities/research of HLN. Sadly I don't know any similar cases to draw precedent from, but it's an important consideration. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with using The Independent here is that the relevant guideline is pretty explicit that sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties. Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself). Analogously, what we have here is coverage of the researcher and the researcher's activities, but without significant attention to HLN itself. In my eyes, that isn't coverage of this organization. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization.
That's true, however HLN is an organization reliable sources agree researches effects of policy on transgender healthcare and the organizations behind the policies. The article is about the founder's research into anti-trans activism, notes he's a founder of HLN, and when discussing his research links to HLN, where it's published. It's not simply covering the researcher/research, but that research as an activity of HLN. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Red-tailed hawk. Other than the single RS, we're looking at a collection of trivial sources with one or two mentions, with some having a couple of quotes, which somehow meets WP:NCORP? The creator's argument boils down to WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, but A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant. Further, for that Sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties. Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization, the creator rebuts that however HLN is an organization reliable sources agree researches effects of policy on transgender healthcare and the organizations behind the policies despite everyone on RSN except for the artice creator concurring that this is a self-published source trivially mentioned by RS. Numerous of the quotes per WP:NCORP also falls under in quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources. Therefore, there is no SIGCOV other than the Extra Magazine piece, and this should be deleted. VickKiang (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – it blatantly fails N, it is barely a year old, their website is a .com, the article looks, feels and acts like an advocacy, it lacks an encyclopedic NPOV approach, and these types of start-up organizations on the internet are a dime a dozen. Making splashes in the ocean, it doesn't pass GNG or N. Where is their organizational information, who funds them, who is behind it as responsible, dedicated health professionals, since their focus is on the mental and physical well-being of people? It also fails WP:10YT and WP:TOOSOON. Atsme 💬 📧 21:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was the first review onto this particular article. I did not mark it as reviewed because at this moment, it does not meet notability standards. I did not nominate for AFD because the author has some experience and I try not to nominate for AFD during NPP reviewing unless absolutely necessary. Given how much actual trash there is, when it comes to a decent but *not quite there yet* article like this, I try to find an alternative. I suggested to the article creator they draftify, but they declined. I looped in my NPP tutor Atsme, and given the thoughts of her and others, I agree this warrants deletion. I suggest TheTranarchist copies and saves the article history, creates a new draft if this gets deleted, and only publishes again in the future if and when notability is established. This is why I suggested draftification - the organisation stands a good chance of meeting NORG some time in the future but it simply is not there yet. This AFD discussion will serve as a good benchmark for future assessment anyway, if it gets deleted and then later recreated, we can assess its improvement based on the issues raised. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: TheTranarchist has moved the article to Draft:Health Liberation Now!. Madeline (part of me) 14:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to TheTranarchist, I don't think unilateral draftication is warranted given the amount of people here supporting deletion rather than drafticiation. If the group becomes notable, then it could be easily restored to draftspace, but keeping a non-notable zombie article in the draftspace makes little sense to me, so I would like to note that this is a contested move to the draftspace and I don't think that draftification in this instance is in line with WP:ATD-I. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Red-tailed hawk: I had thought references to deletion meant deletion from mainspace and a move to draftspace, I hadn't realized they meant deletion entirely. However, if another WP:SIRS source comes about, we have reason to move back to mainspace as opposed to just returning to draft. In the meantime, keeping it as a draft harms no one and makes such updates easier. Per WP:ATD-I, Recently created articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace ("draftified") for improvement, with the aim of eventually moving them back to the main namespace, and I think the article has potential and HLN! enough notability to imply they'll have enough further coverage in future. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I take the view, generally, that decidedly non-notable articles should be deleted rather than draftified, since there is not potential for those articles to be polished into something that's worthy of mainspace absent the exogenous creation of new material that covers the topic. In other words, draftification is not a stasis chamber for the hopes that a topic one day becomes notable; it's for improving articles that are likely notable but have significant policy failures in other respects (such as WP:BLP or WP:V) that need to be corrected before the topic is moved to mainspace. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxnaCarta:, @Atsme:, @VickKiang:, @Red-tailed hawk:
Just letting everyone know I moved the article to draft space, I'd thought (apparently incorrectly) the Independent was a second WP:SIRS source. Would like to clarify my decision was never WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, but my belief there were two SIRS sources. Would also like to say the article is not advocacy but neutral as possible, I collected and summarized what every reliable source had to say about them. Quotes I used supplemented factual statements about their activities from the sources (an earlier version of the article relied more on such statements).
In regards to Where is their organizational information, who funds them, who is behind it as responsible, dedicated health professionals, since their focus is on the mental and physical well-being of people? They are self-run and the only funding I see is a Ko-fi for donations as they're more concerned with reporting than profit. One does not need to be a responsible, dedicated health professional to report attacks on transgender healthcare, medical consensus is clear that those are bad, and the authors are directly effected by such policies. You don't need a medical degree to say "hey, here's a far right group pushing legislation everyone recognizes harms trans people" and provide sources to support that fact. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I truly do hope that you will come to understand why that article fails NPOV and Notability. The editors at RSN agreed that it and cited sources fail NPOV, and the discussion here demonstrates support for the N issues. I highly recommend that you work with a mentor at WP:Teahouse. Perhaps Cullen328 can help you, or will recommend someone who can. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 15:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Correction 12:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you intend to link to a thread on RSN rather than NPOVN? Madeline (part of me) 12:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, thx for catching it – now fixed as originally intentioned. That's what happens when you start editing before morning coffee.~ Atsme 💬 📧 12:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. No prejudice on recreation if/when more sources pop up. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nominator and others above. The article's notability is only supported by one valid source. I am not necessarily opposed to draftifying, but I take Red-tailed hawk's argument that draftspace is not a perpetual incubation chamber and if a subject is non-notable then there may well be no point in sending it to draft. As per Emir, no prejudice on recreation if the sources ever make it appropriate and as MaxnaCarta pointed out, this discussion could eventually serve as a valuable data point if the article ever goes through RfC in the future. Jtrrs0 (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I went in to this AfD with a good-faith effort to find other sources in the hopes of this being kept. Unfortunately, this organization is not notable, at least at this time. It fails the GNG requirements as laid out by the nominator. --Kbabej (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2022 (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/Health_Liberation_Now!&oldid=1116036139"