Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Servants Anonymous Society

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Servants Anonymous Society

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

Local charitable organization that fails the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 21:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure what the nominator's looking at: a Gnews search for the term definitely meets WP:ORG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you have confused Ghits with actual sources, or why you think "because I said so" constitutes actual evidence. --Calton | Talk 16:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should note that this is part of a mass series of WP:POINTy, WP:WIKIHOUNDing nominations targeting User:Neelix-created articles, as stated as User_talk:Kelly#Neelix. Opposing on procedural grounds alone. This is apparently retribution over an issue now at this ANI thread as well as Neelix's editing around Tara Teng -- neither of which are related to the charitable organizations he is now taking to Afd. Per WP:BOOMERANG, it is Kelly's disruptive editing that is now a problem, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that ... that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive.

So when you're finished poisoning the well, perhaps you could actually address the actual issues? --Calton | Talk 16:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should strike your bad-faith comments, User:Shawn in Montreal. So far, several articles created by Neelix have been deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure; I forgot about this one. I'd already apologized to Kelly at the ANI. I still think he was a too broad with these Neelix Afds but I'm sure a good many of them will pass. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable, well referenced; Tara Teng doesn't appear to be inappropriately shoehorned in, which I understand to be one of the possible concerns.-- Elmidae 08:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the actual concern -- Shawn in Montreal's bad-faith narrative notwithstanding -- has nothing to do with Tara Teng? --Calton | Talk 16:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, move your eyes on over to the infobox and photo. Who's that in the image? —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any sources outside of Alberta that would support notability for a local org. Appears part of the walled garden of Tara worship. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't need to be "outside of Alberta" — Alberta is a huge Canadian province. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 20:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not supported by any reliable sources, except for local news sources and sources related to the subject. Seems to be a puffery article for a topic related to Tara Teng. epic genius (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there are 1.1 million people in Calgary, AB — we're not talking about coverage in the Cricketsville Tiddler... Carrite (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a great title for a newspaper, Carrite! :) AusLondonder (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let's just strip aside the question of who wrote this piece and who is a leading member of this organization and take a neutral, honest look at whether it passes GNG as a organization covered substantially by multiple pieces of independently-published coverage in sources of presumed reliability, shall we? (1) THIS counts as one towards GNG, "Servants Anonymous Society of Calgary seeks help to salvage flooded Christmas of vulnerable women, kids," in the Calgary Sun, Dec. 2014. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mention in THIS from the site of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Calgary. Not substantial enough to count to GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, passing mention only in THIS from the Cloverdale Reporter. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mere passing mention once more in THIS piece from The Star on hearings on anti-prostitution legislation. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that THIS listing on a website of Ottawa University counts as (2) towards GNG, being independently published, substantial, and of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A listing in the Calgary Street Survival Guide for 2010 HERE is borderline as (3). That's enough to get me over the top for the "multiple" requirement. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on the above, it appears that this organization (barely) meets GNG for inclusion in Wikipedia. In a close call, I will always favor inclusionism over deletionism, particularly when a piece is part of a set of more or less retaliatory nominations. Honest people may differ about whether GNG is fulfilled here. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It is a fairly close call, despite the aggressive bad-faith personal attack by another editor on the nom above. The organisation has received some media attention, but not, in many cases, significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Unfortunately I'm just not seeing WP:ORG here. Even in local papers it mostly seems to be brief mentions, and most of the other sources are primary or otherwise not independent of the source (partners and press releases, for example). The only real sources I've seen so far are Calgary Sun, and another source I haven't seen linked, a local magazine cited below but behind a paywall, I think. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Home for mary magdalene: A christian ministry to juvenile prostitutes expands (servants anonymous society of calgary works with prostitutes under 18 years of age)". Western Report. 9 (32). 1 August 1994.

Keep only if better coverage can be found but if not delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Brief mentions and four events that got one write-up in the local paper doth not notability make. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:40, 14 November 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.