Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anti-sexual assault organizations in the United States

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. Shimeru (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of anti-sexual assault organizations in the United States[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. WP is not a directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A user who's searching for information about rape crisis centres might be badly in need of help, and they also might not be in a very clear state of mind. Wikipedia doesn't normally publish telephone numbers, but I see that Rape crisis center has the National Sexual Assault Helpline number written in the lede, in bold face—which, I think, shows remarkably good judgment. There are a few times when we ought to ignore the rules and find a way to point users to the information they need no matter what. (It's a pity all this isn't much help if the person who's been raped isn't American, but you can't have everything.)
This article is linked from various "danger zone" search terms such as Rape,Sexual assault and Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. Wanting to delete it because of NOTDIR is a bit scary, frankly. I wonder how many people have needed to refer to this list... My !vote is strong keep.—S Marshall T/C 22:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 04:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you under the impression that this is a vote?—S Marshall T/C 11:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am under the impression that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the yellow pages or a link repository. People often seem to forget that. When it comes to the inclusion or exclusion of content, the question should not (only) be 'might it be helpful to some user' but also 'is the content encyclopedic?' SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 15:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for 99.9% of articles, you're entirely correct. This is one of the 0.01%, though, where rigorous application of policy needs to be tempered with editorial judgment, and I think it's a child protection issue. A child who's subject to sexual assault might well be in the same home as the assaulter, and not be able to use the phone unobserved. But that child might be able to quickly use a computer while hiding the screen. Getting help, for that child, is time-critical. When they google for "Rape", they'll find Wikipedia as one of the top search terms, which means there's a very good chance that they'll end up finding this list as their way to get help. But without it, they'll need to go back to google and repeat their search under time pressure. Without wanting to be overly dramatic, this is a decision that could potentially have a very serious impact on someone, and personally I find these considerations a lot more important than an online encyclopaedia's content guidelines.—S Marshall T/C 16:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to see people being harmed because they cannot find information on the Internet, however, the vast majority of Internet users will realise that WP is an encyclopedia rather than a directory and seek assistance for protection elsewhere. This article is one of the few articles that I have seen that list websites for those who are subjected to violence. WP does not list police stations!! S Marshall, your humanitarian goals are laudable but they should be tempered with rational thinking about how people get assistance in times of danger. Virtually everybody would use the telephone to contact emergency services if any threats are imminent and use a search engine to find the appropriate contact details if there is no immediate danger. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article does not violate the policy WP:NOTDIR. It is within the scope of wikipedia to create entries for lists of organizations. It is very common. This is not the kind of loose list of data for which that policy was created to prevent an entry. Read the policy and look at the article again. The subject is clear and well defined. Wikipedia can be used as an Almanac by policy.

Deleting this article on those grounds would amount to challenge what I believe is a very well established category, [Category:Lists of organizations] Maziotis (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand what the problem is. The category referenced by Maziotis contains dozens of such lists; they don't seem to violate any WP policy. Arguments about who might or might not need the page, and for what purpose, are irrelevant; the page is acceptable on its own merits. BTW I suggest that someone also create a redirect pointing to this page, called something like "List of rape crisis centers", since that may be a more likely search term. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2010 (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.