Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel's Vineyard

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. Stifle (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Rachel's Vineyard

Rachel's Vineyard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Subject of very limited independent coverage. Article is almost entirely drawn from the organization itself. No indication of broader notability. Suggest redirect to Priests for Life, of which it is a part). (Bold redirect by another editor disputed by the article's initial author.) SummerPhD (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect per my initial rationale: "not notable (coverage is WP:ROUTINE announcements, non-reliable sources, promotional material)". Note also that the revert of the redirect, by the article creator, almost justifies a delete all by itself: "Don't let's stop people from getting help. This is a valuable resource for abortion survivors." The article is obviously intended to serve as promotion for the organization, rather than any encyclopedic function. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Abortion is, of course, a very controversial topic, and I would hate to see it get politicized on Wikipedia. There is already an article on Wikipedia about Abortion and mental health that addresses the existence or non-existence of "post-abortion syndrome," which goes so far as to allege that “some physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that the focus on "post-abortion syndrome" is a tactic used by pro-life advocates for political purposes.” Plainly, this is a political hot-potato. As an abortion survivor, who was deeply hurt by my partner’s decision to have an abortion, I urge that this article be kept up so that people might find the help they need. As a frequent contributor to Wikipedia (mostly on typography), I think that objectivity would be served by including this article, as there is a clear political motive to purging it. And as for the “encyclopedic function” of Wikipedia, I have to ask if we are here to be a bloodless compendium of facts, or a resource that people can also use to better their lives. "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it" Dutchman Schultz (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment This discussion is not about any other article on Wikipedia or abortion in general. This is about whether or not this subject meets our criteria for inclusion, outlined at WP:N. In general, subjects are notable if they are the subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. This subject is not. Typically, this would suggest that we delete the article and put a redirect in its place to Priests for Life. (Note that that article is also currently lacking significant coverage.) - SummerPhD (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect -- lack of sufficient coverage in secondary RS to justify a separate page. a13ean (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak keep -- the social text and the journal article are minimally sufficient. a13ean (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep and add material on subject such as that found in this Chicago Tribune article [1] and in this New York Times article [[2]. For an article that has been in Wikipedia for about four and a half years shouldn't we be willing to do a basic google search for reliable sources? Badmintonhist (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I did run across the Times piece. I felt (and still feel) the coverage there is trivial. I can't figure how I missed the Tribune article, which certainly looks useful, if we can find more than one article of that depth. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Cosign. Trivial mentions don't support notability, nor does a single useful piece. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm seeing well over 100 news stories (I stopped counting at 100) and about 50 books discussing the subject. I think WP:N is more than satisfied, and I don't know why the nom missed all that coverage. Also, "article is almost entirely drawn from the organization itself" is not a valid deletion reason, it's a reason to improve the article: see WP:NOTCLEANUP. And I really don't understand the suggestion "that the revert of the redirect, by the article creator, almost justifies a delete all by itself." -- 202.124.75.35 (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If you would take the time to look at the "news stories" instead of just citing WP:GOOGLEHITS, you would notice what I already pointed out: they're routine announcements (probably some paid listings), passing mentions in people's lists of credentials, obviously unreliable sources. Likewise the book sources are obviously unreliable. There's a reason WP:GOOGLEHITS is a page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not seeing >100 reliable sources with substantial coverage. If you can link to several, that would be helpful. That the current article is almost entirely from the organization is not the deletion reason I gave. "Subject of very limited independent coverage. Article is almost entirely drawn from the organization itself. No indication of broader notability." I draw attention to the weak current sourcing to head off any "But it has 17 sources" claims. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Weak current sourcing is not a deletion reason, and sources are indeed quite numerous, as another editor has pointed out below. The book sources I've looked at devote several pages to "Rachel's Vineyard." And I see no reason to call the book sources "unreliable," unless that's a code phrase for "having the wrong politico-religious ideology." -- 202.124.74.6 (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. They're a well known organization with a long list of news stories. This would be akin to a pro life advocate asking to get rid of Planned Parenthood's Wikipedia page. The personal bias of the editor should not cloud their objectivity -- and I am concerned that the objectivity of this editor may be clouded by their politics. Lordvolton (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? Do you mean me? After assuming good faaith: What indication of a "personal bias" and my "politics" do you see? To repeat: If you have substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, please link to it as I am not seeing it. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

My apologies... I should have been more specific. I was referring to Roscelese. Lordvolton (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Except that PP's notability is painfully obvious. If RV is notable, you should be able to demonstrate that notability, instead of arguing (as the creator has done) "people need to know about them," "they have a lot of Facebook likes," "I was personally hurt by my partner's abortion," and "is Wikipedia really meant to be an encyclopedia of facts anyway?" –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Examples for Roscelese

As you know, Rachel's Vineyard is a Catholic Organization and there are numerous (too many to list) references to them in Catholic publications. However, after investing a few minutes here are a few that you might find more to your liking -- although you routinely ignore reputable sources based on my previous experience with you (e.g., Douglas Karpen article).

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/magazine/21abortion.t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

"Mainstream anti-abortion groups didn’t shout Koop down, and the issue seemed dead. But the Catholic Church, which began financing abortion-recovery counseling in the early 1980s, continued to do so, and in 1986, Theresa Burke began developing a model of weekly support groups and later weekend retreats for women suffering from what she called post-abortion trauma. In 1993, Burke founded Rachel’s Vineyard, an independent religious group, to broaden her reach. The gatherings multiplied across the country — more than 500 retreats are planned internationally in 2007 — as well as an annual training conference. “It just grew and grew,” Burke says. " - New York Times

The New York Times should meet a reasonable person's threshold.

Here are a few more:

http://www.lakeplacidnews.com/page/content.detail/id/502658/Izzo-competes-for-a-good-cause.html?nav=5007 http://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/health/article/Is-post-abortion-syndrome-real-1242400.php http://old.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20020120abortion0120p3.asp

Here are just a few books that reference Rachel’s Vineyard:

Abortion, Motherhood, and Mental Health by Ellie Lee (page 23) Almost wasn’t: a memoir of my abortion and how God used me by Sonya Howard (page 119) Backroad to the Whitehouse by Joe Schriner (page 138) Feminism vs. women by Ashley Herzog (page 97) Crises Pregnancy Centers: the birthplace of grassroots movements by Terry Ionora (page 89) I’m pregnant, now what? By Ruth Graham and Sara Dorman (page 202) The Road back to Grace: a guide to healing your past. By David Whitaker (page 164)

And the list goes on...

Lordvolton (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's another newspaper article on Rachel's Vineyard, this one from the Hartford Courant [3]

Other citations:

• Genevieve, Maher, P., & Ryan, T. (2009). Healing abortion's trauma and 'Rachel's Vineyard Retreat': From three participants. Australasian Catholic Record, 86(2), 200-211.
• Cockrill, K., Upadhyay, U. D., Turan, J. and Greene Foster, D. (2013), The Stigma of Having an Abortion: Development of a Scale and Characteristics of Women Experiencing Abortion Stigma. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 45: 79–88. doi: 10.1363/4507913 -- 202.124.74.6 (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's another newspaper article. This one is from the Straits Times (Singapore) [4] Badmintonhist (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

So, routine local coverage, trivial mentions, and unreliable/promotional sources, just like I said. What about this is supposed to persuade me? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment'It is nice that some users here point out that reliable sources can be found on this subject. However, as long as the article isn't supported by them, it still lacks WP:RS. Please improve the article with the sources, because as for now, it still reads too much like an advertisement.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment' NY Times is a passing reference, not supporting any content BananaFiend (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Continued discussion

• Delete Not sufficiently notable. I'm unconvinced by the examples above with the exception of the Chicago Tribune article. One would like to see greater coverage and less self-promotional material. As it stands, delete is warranted. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"I see nothing . . . nothing." The Sergeant Schultz routine isn't convincing. The Chicago Tribune was under no obligation to interview Rachel's Vineyard founder Theresa Karminski Burke. This wasn't an interview about her upcoming nuptials. The Hartford Courant wasn't asking Clarissa Cincotta about her recipe for Welsh rarebit, they were asking her about her work with Rachel's Vineyard. The Straits Times of Singapore (a nation which, notably, has a recent history of both legal abortion and press censorship), wasn't asking Jennifer Heng's advice about finding the right maid for a family with young children, they were asking her about Rachel's Vineyard. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. The relevant criterion here is surely WP:NONPROFIT:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.

I think (1) is obvious, with sources from around the USA, Singapore and Australia. We also have "multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources" (books, journal articles, newspaper stories from around the world) providing "information about the organization and its activities." If it wasn't for all the controversy, I think notability would be obvious. When the "routine local coverage" that Roscelese mentions is happening across the USA and the world, then that's got to be an indication that WP:NONPROFIT is satisfied. -- 202.124.73.13 (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's another newspaper article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [5].

• Keep -- I suspect that some of the votes against are due to "I DO NOT LIKE IT". 133 retreats per year and operations in several countries suggest that it is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Promotional. Gamaliel (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a cleanup reason, not a deletion reason. -- 202.124.73.8 (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope, such deletions are commonplace. Gamaliel (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:DEL-REASON and WP:NOTCLEANUP. -- 202.124.74.2 (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Some things are not worth cleaning up. Gamaliel (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

And they are not worth cleaning up because I just don't like them. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't like it when Wkipedia is cluttered with press releases promoting non notable organizations. Should I enjoy that? Gamaliel (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has tens of thousands of articles on subjects less notable than this one. If the article, as it stands, is poorly sourced and poorly written then the answer is to improve it. Take out the fluff and add well sourced substance. If you want an example of a worse article that's been in Wikipedia for years check out Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Gamaliel (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as the essay points out, is a weak argument when it stands alone. In this case it doesn't stand alone because a number of reliable sources with objective information about the program have been found. What's really at work here is WP:POV: Editors looking for arguably marginal, politically uncongenial articles to delete while giving a pass to similarly marginal but politically inoffensive articles. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Most of the newspaper articles are routine announcements, so they do not count. Many of the books mentioning Rachel's Vineyard are self-published so they do not count, either. The reliable sources that convinced me this is a valid topic are the following:

• Gonzalez, Ramon (September 7, 2005). "Rachel's Vineyard offers new retreat for non-Catholics". Western Catholic Reporter. Archived from the original on October 4, 2006. Retrieved July 10, 2013. This is not an announcement but an analysis by a staff reporter.
• Lee, Ellie (2003). Abortion, Motherhood, and Mental Health: Medicalizing Reproduction in the United States and Great Britain. Social Problems and Social Issues (2 ed.). Transaction Publishers. pp. 23–24. ISBN 9780202364049.
• Genevieve; Peter Maher; Thomas Ryan (2009). "Healing Abortion's Trauma and 'Rachel's Vineyard Retreat': From Three Participants". Australasian Catholic Record. 86 (2): 200–211.

• These were sufficient in my view to satisfy WP:GNG—they show dedicated descriptions by third parties. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The SNR is lower than I'd like but the Tribune article and Binksternet's sources are enough for notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Non-notability

Gamaliel and Badmintonhist's discussion has raised an important point. If this article is non-notable then we will be forced to consider culling a lot of other articles in order for there to be any semblance of fairness on Wikipedia.

Here is a beginning list of potential articles that Roscelese and Gamaliel can begin reviewing for notability and deletion using the same standard that they're applying to Rachel's Vineyard.

They're going to be busy beavers! Lordvolton (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This kind of WP:WAX doesn't really help the discussion. -- 202.124.88.39 (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete WP:WAX is irrelevant here. Article's subject does not meet WP:ORG; sources are not independent of the Catholic Church. Miniapolis 14:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Several sources listed above are in fact independent of the Catholic Church, and even the Catholic ones are independent of "Rachel's Vineyard." The relevant criterion here is WP:NONPROFIT, which is clearly met. -- 202.124.89.17 (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I think we need to focus on whether this organziation is notable, not some other group, or groups, or lists of groups. I am not sure. I am asking my fellow sysops to consider re-listing this, so as to gain a consensus, as the issue is unlikely to go away immediately.... Bearian (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Heading to a no consensus closure, but let me relist it to be on the safe side.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

---

• Keep - Sourcing on the piece is terrible, with self-sourcing and blogs dominating. I believe there is enough independently published material, such as THIS from West Central Wisconsin Catholic, to support a piece. This is the sort of material that an encyclopedia should include, burden of proof should be on those seeking deletion of serious content. No, as an organization IDONTLIKEIT, but that's irrelevant — there is sufficient sourcing to pass GNG out there... Carrite (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The referencing was better than it looked, with several reputable newspapers included, but the use of bare urls did the article no favours at all. I've turned about a quarter of them into proper citations. I think both WP:NONPROFIT and WP:GNG are easily satisfied now. -- 202.124.89.10 (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per Carrite and the sources brought forward during this debate. I am on the other side of the issue personally, but want this encyclopedia to cover notable topics on all sides. That being said, I have edited the article with NPOV in mind, and placed the article on my watch list. This article should not be a promotional brochure for these retreats. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect: Despite WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and tons of WP:PUFFERY, lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Mentions of the organization in reliable independent sources are tangential, trivial or routine. Not enough to base a free-standing article on by a wide mile. Article is purely promotional in nature as it stands, and I doubt that reliable sources exist to create an objective and informative article in compliance with WP:NPOV. My own searches turned up nothing promising. In fact, I'm having trouble verifying that the "organization" is anything more than a handful of cranks with a fax machine. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? The cited coverage in reliable publications from three separate countries, and the hundreds of events they run, doesn't suggest that they might be more than "a handful of cranks with a fax machine"? -- 202.124.89.18 (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't like it, but I am leaning keep per Carrite, Cullen and Xymmax. FWIW, I think all of the other, pro-choice organizations mentioned above are also notable, with the possible exceptions. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

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.