Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless

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 keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless

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

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

Delete per WP:NCORP. There's nothing particularly notable about what they do that stands out and make them globally noteworthy. It is run of the mill in a sense that organizations that provides xx services for yy demographics in zz area are highly common. Article has a long history of promotional publicity editing as well. Graywalls (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Companies, and Washington, D.C.. Graywalls (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "make them globally noteworthy"? I don't believe that's a requirement here. The fact that they were established by the District of Columbia Bar, and is overseen by a board of governors, in order to provide the pro bono services for the homeless, does make them noteworthy. — Maile (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, per WP:INHERITORG, companies and organizations are not notable simply because it is associated with notable/big/prominent person/group for the purpose of articles. Notability is evaluated by significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sourcesWP:ORGIND and WP:ORGDEPTH with adequate readership WP:AUD Graywalls (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:ORG. WaPo has dozens of articles over decades which taken together encompass a SIRS source. Here's a PhD dissertation with secondary coverage of statements, positions and effects (or lack thereof) [1]. Here's a trade pub with some coverage as well [2][3]. WP:AUD is satisfied by either of the first two sources. —siro χ o 19:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, many of those articles are serving as local reporting and I believe it doesn't meet the intent of WP:AUD. Similar examples: A local law clinic in Seattle called Northwest Justice Project has tens of articles on Seattletimes.com just as a point of reference. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Northwest+Justice+Project%22+site%3Aseattletimes.com Another example of local law clinic called Inner City Law Center in Los Angeles has lots of articles in Los Angeles Times https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Inner+City+Law+Center%22+site%3Alatimes.com Graywalls (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but your comments above are starting to leak a little. By your thinking above, location of the source might indicate prejudice in favor of, or against, or promoting of, any subject. — Maile (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I purposely chose examples of similar organizations that provide similar services, in major cities. I intentionally compared against something similar so they're as relevant as possible. Graywalls (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see an assessment of newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this seems like a similar case to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Public_Counsel. References such as from Georgetown Law and https://wamu.org/story/17/05/03/d-c-s-widely-used-program-move-homeless-families-housing-failing-says-advocacy-group/ indicate the subject meets notability standards for inclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 17:36, 18 September 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.