Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richmond SPCA

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. A shown by the sources added by BrikDuk, an argument can be made that the organisation passes WP:GNG. On the other hand an argument can be made that the subject fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. No-one has definitely disproved either of these two arguments and so, no consensus has been reached. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond SPCA

[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)

Non-notable organization that fails to meet WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE search shows the subject has a lot of promotional and fundraising coverage (adopt this dog, donate pet food, 5K runs) and typical animal rescue press releases (we saved this bunch of abused dogs), all either brief mentions or routine local feel-good promotions intended for fundraising purposes. But there's no "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to reach the NCORP standard. The article has a mere dozen edits since it was created 5 years ago. Even the editor who unPROD'd my nomination two months ago didn't contribute content. The article rests on the laurels of a single (though stellar example of coverage) article from 2011. [1] Though laudible, as are all truly charitable efforts, this organization is ultimately a typical animal humane organization lacking sufficient notability for a standalone article. Normal Op (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. There are thousands of animal shelters around the world doing excellent jobs; this one is no different. William Harris (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick internet search found an NBC news report from 2009 and other significant coverage about this organization with a very long history. I noticed there is on the talk page a note from an inexperienced editor who did not know the way to have citations in the article. They are instead cited inline as is not the custom to do. I added two citations but find there is much work still to be done improving the editing on this article. It should be therefore kept and improved. BrikDuk (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the article tells me that the author of two of these three sources is Robin Starr, an employee of the shelter, therefore not WP:INDEPENDANT of the subject as per WP:GNG. The other source is an interview with Robin Starr as the source of the information, which is arguable about being independent. With just the one source the shelter does not meet notability. William Harris (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find that she does work there at the present time but rather is a board member, and I agree that is not objective. The text of the article contains very much unnecessary information that needs editing. However, I find multiple, reliable sources and ongoing coverage about this organization with long historical record in the community. BrikDuk (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to provide a couple of reliable sources that provide significant coverage, per WP:SIGCOV, please? A mention here and there does not provide the required significant coverage. William Harris (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment I have completed reworking of the history section by removing much unneeded text and adding a total of ten citations for what remains in this section of the article. I have not reworked the about section which also is needing much work. BrikDuk (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Atsme 💬 📧 13:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence to suggest this animal shelter is any more notable than any other animal shelter.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems the most relevant policy is WP:ORGCRIT, which is straightforwardly "the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I take Animal Sheltering Magazine to be reliable in this domain, and there is an NBC article. There are also several local media outlet articles, which overall makes the organization just pass the bar for me. I also wonder what other animal shelters have WP articles and where the bar has been set by previous editors. Maybe I shouldn't be taking Animal Sheltering Magazine so seriously? Jmill1806 (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BrikDuk has added references. There are reliable references from mainstream news websites. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to delete. We don't need stand-alone articles on every local affiliate or offshoot of national/international organizations. What we probably should have is list articles of American, etc., SPCA groups (or animal shelters, or animal-welfare organizations more generally), with concise summaries of them. Animal Sheltering Magazine isn't independent of the topic and is a niche trade publication without a clear reputation we can rely on. The other coverage is mostly trivial. The article is predominantly drawing on the org's own self-published content. There's also coat-racking, about euthanasia at shelters and the recent increase in no-kill shelters, as if Richmond SPCA caused that change. Lot's of local-people namedropping. This just doesn't seem very encyclopedic. I'm reminded of all the "my favorite local restaurant or amateur softball team or whatever" articles we delete. If we keep articles like this, we'll end up with a lot more chaff (e.g. on local chambers of commerce, homeless shelters and food banks, community branch libraries, churches and pastors, etc.) They all have histories, and local coverage, and maybe occasional mention in field-specific newsletters, but they're not good encyclopedia subjects. We were once making something of a categorical exception for schools, but even that has been pared back, with many merging into school district articles. Anyway, an article on an org like this should be kept if there's something unusually notable about it (major national awards, some scandal that put it in national-level news for a long time, or whatever). But this is just a charity doing its job, apparently competently. Competency isn't notability. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As per Society_for_the_Prevention_of_Cruelty_to_Animals none of these organizations are affiliated with each other. BrikDuk (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's true that the local-level SPCAs aren't affiliated with the national one except by duplicating the name (same with humane associations & HSUS). However, everything else SMcCandlish wrote was spot on. This is an ordinary organization with a long history that is doing its job ordinarily, and this article along with the dozens of other shelter, SPCA and HS articles have been used primarily as a promotional tool relying on primary sources (which includes interviews) rather than noting something notable. Normal Op (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And whether they're legally affiliated or not is irrelevant; we can still have a "List of US societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals" or something even more generalized. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of this AFD, I like that idea, though I think it would be contentious. See this recent discussion on a simple list of vegetarians. Jmill1806 (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a list of organization by what they exist for (a defining characteristic) is very different from a list of people by a lifestyle/philosophy choice (generally not defining from an encyclopedic perspective). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I agree the article definitely isn’t very well written, a variety of sources indicate that the subject appears to be notable. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We normally do not keep articles on local cha[pters of national organizations, or the encyclopedia would be unbalanced. Thei general characteristic and operations are covered in the main articles. Their specific local events are too transient and local for an encyclopedia . Anyone wanting information about their officers or details cna find the in the web. The guiding rule is is the funamental policy NOT DIRECTORY. This is an exact example of what it's meant to deal with. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd meant to cite WP:NOT#DIRECTORY myself but forgot. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:22, 3 November 2020 (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.