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. Avi (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birthright International

[edit]

I don't see why the original prod was removed. The two "government links" added are just poorly-formatted directory entries for people providing health care related services. It no more establishes notability than to show that your business is listed in the Yellow Pages. Article does not really assert notability, except that it says it has 500 offices, but that doesn't really mean anything.

If the article were rewritten so it wasn't an advertisement, this might be borderline acceptable for inclusion. Jaysweet (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I only found two sources writing about this organization; this one says it has 'several offices in the Lancaster area,' doesn't confirm 500, and I wouldn't call the source's coverage nontrivial. I couldn't get through to this college paper article; maybe someone else will be able to access it. The article is blatant advertising, and this is one of those businesses that pretends to be a health clinic in its advertising, but is really just counseling against abortion. I think those places are pretty shady, but some of them are notable- I don't see evidence that this is one of them -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. If it reads like an advertisement, rewrite it as an encyclopedia article. Fg2 (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Did you find sources? The only one I found indicates that the claim of 500 offices may not be true, and I couldn't find any that showed notability. We'll need to add your sources to the article... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I use Twinkle to do all the listing, article creation, etc., and it seems like every now and then it misfires and I get a malformed/incomplete nomination. I'll try to remember to double-check it in the future. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Birthright has a significant presence in Canada and the US. Because it's a Pro Life organization it'll be hard to find entirely NPOV sources, but that's the nature of the beast in such a politicized area. Debate (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the suggestions to "improve" the article and clean it up so it's not an advertisement... Well, somebody's gotta volunteer to do that if we are going to keep this article. This group might be notable enough to include in the encyclopedia (I am not yet convinced, as nobody has offered even a sliver of a reliable source, but for now I'll take Fg2's and Debate's assertions at face value), but as it stands now, this article hurts Wikipedia. If somebody doesn't volunteer to fix it up, we simply can't let it stay. See WP:HEY. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did some cleanup myself. I still am not comfortable leaving the article unless we can get some kind of secondary source talking about how big they are and what they do. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also did a clean-up... your edit caused an edit conflict but mine uses mostly new text from secondary sources so I went with it, although it's still poor. As I note above, there's no shortage of sources, although finding any with NPOV is tough. Debate (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new version. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new version is good to the point I am considering retracting my nomination. I wish there were a "Criticism" section. The Crisis pregnancy center article has a criticisms section, which mentions Birthright, but the source they provide does not specifically mention Birthright, so I am uncomfortable adding it. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it needs a criticism section. I tried finding a quote from something half-credible, but weirdly, I wasn't successful. Of course, it's 1:30am in the morning here so if I'm missing something it wouldn't surprise me. I'll have a look again tomorrow, but anyone who tries to beat me to that before then would be well regarded. Debate (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retract nomination My WP:HEY concerns have been mostly resolved. The lack of unbiased sources is still a problem, but the article itself is pretty npov now, and at least tries to be encyclopedic (despite some questions about the sources). I have started a discussion about improving the balance of sources on the article's talk page. --14:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep especially as it is now.-- danntm ^T _C 22:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2008 (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.