Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precious Life (organisation)

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. Those asking for the article's preservation have failed to present evidence of independent notability. - Notability is not inherited. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious Life (organisation)

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

Article's a mess, reads like an ad, and appears to strongly advocate for one particular position. If it survives afd - and from where I sit thats a big if - then we can see about cleaning it up. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know if this article should stay or go, but there was a lot of material recently removed by an IP without benefit of edit summary explaining why. I've restored it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It looks like there are hundreds of reliable source hits for the leader, Bernadette Smyth. Easily passes GNG. The article itself needs a lot of work, including NPOV. (The leader's name is Smyth, not Smith). – Margin1522 (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Responding to the request for reliable sources talking about the subject of the article in a significant way, here are some.

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]

The first four are newspapers and IrishCentral, which may be more RS than the others. The others are a mix of RS news sites and religious, pro-life, and pro-choice sites, but they all discuss the organization – either the number of its members (pro-life sites) or its tactics (pro-choice sites). I would note that being poorly written is not a valid reason for deletion. Being POV is a valid reason, but only when it can't be corrected. I would say that in this case it could be corrected, given all of the information in these cites about its aggressive tactics, which have been called harassment and intimidation. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's possible the leader is notable, but notability is not inherited. I'm yet to see sufficient reliable sources talking about the subject of the article in a significant way. In fact the name of the organization doesn't even appear in most of the sources it currently cites. The article looks to just be a series of opinions held by the group about abortion-related news and events. Perfectly willing to change my !vote if someone else has succeeds in finding sources, and no prejudice to the creation of an article on Smyth. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While not every source frames the issue as "Smyth does stuff, by the way, her group is called Precious Life", I'm inclined to agree with Rhododentries that if there is any notability here, it attaches to Smyth. If the article were better I'd suggest keeping it and reworking it into an article on Smyth, but currently nearly the whole article consists of their statements (from articles on abortion rights developments), not their actions and tactics, so might as well TNT and start over. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I'm rather dubious of the idea that we need to distinguish between the group and the group's leader and spokesperson. If Smyth is notable it's because she's the leader of the activists who are circulating petitions and camping out in front of the clinic every day ~~with their gruesome pictures~~. Granted, a lot of the publicity is from her trial for harassment. But that incident took place as part of a larger demonstration by the group~~, who were heckling and harassing people entering and leaving the clinic, in one case chasing them down the street~~. If Smyth were just another private individual ~~who thinks that abortion clinics in the US are run by Jews and the Mafia (casual remark in one of the sources I listed above),~~ with pro-life views, nobody would care. She's notable because the group is. (Edited for NPOV. Sorry.) – Margin1522 (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2015 (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.