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 merge to Habitat for Humanity. This closure is not based on a strong consensus that has emerged. But I don't think additional relistings will help solidify or clarify the situation. LizRead!Talk! 22:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural renomination of an article that was erroneously listed at redirects for discussion, as the original nominator was proposing to redirect the existing article. As nominator I am neutral unless I comment otherwise below. Original rationale follows:
I'm trying to uphold the redirect. I want to redirect it per WP:BRANCH. The original article is too local in nature to qualify under WP:NONPROFIT and would not meet notability guidelines for organizations. It's quite promotional and includes quite a bit of name drops. Normally, I would AfD it, however given that there's a suitable target and we're expected to consider alternatives to deletion, I am suggesting re So, re-direct per WP:ATD-R with very selective merge as appropriate. I am starting the discussion as the article creator is objecting the redirect. (original nom by user Graywalls 14:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the article. While not a featured article, it has more than enough notability to prevent its deletion. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 21:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it should be eradicated entirely, but condensed down, merged and the page re-directed to the target. Per WP:DIRECTORY, things like various partners are undue, especially sourced to the article company's own website. Primary sources also do not count towards notability. Repeated coverage by the same journalist or same publisher also only counts as one for the purpose of evaluating notability. Graywalls (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Habitat for Humanity as I originally proposed, as WP:BRANCH clearly suggests As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area.Graywalls (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though substantial amount of contents have been added since the nomination, a lot of it is primary source such as Guidestar and the organization itself. Graywalls (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what Graywalls says, the primary organization is not used as a source. Guidestar is used to obtain the IRS Form 990 for the organization's statistics. Most everything else from Guidestar has multiple sources. As I previously stated, there is more than enough notability to prevent its deletion. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 02:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mgreason:, where do you see substantial discussion about HabiJax beyond the chapter's local area that is by a party that is not involved with HabiJax? Graywalls (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rebuttal you provided doesn't demonstrate relevance beyond the local area. Why would you provide a dead link in AfD discussion such that others have to go hunt for archive on their own? The Timesonline piece: https://web.archive.org/web/20090115112129/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5439388.ece does not really discuss HabiJax. The HUD source is a primary source PRESS RELEASE PR talk about their own office. Press releases never count towards notability. Even writing contents in article based on them is to be avoided. Graywalls (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did provide two sources beyond the local area. You reject the London Times article because you had trouble accessing it. When I added the url to my rebuttal, it was not a dead link. You say it "does not really discuss HabiJax", but the subject of the article is the HabiJax project. Regarding the archived link to the Habitat for Humanity website: that was not a press release from HabiJax. It came from the national organization which should be considered a secondary source. It seems like you're splitting hairs. I actually omitted another source: An HUD article. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 15:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just added four more sources beyond the local area. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 17:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be considered secondary? It's HUD taking about its previous employee being on board for Habitat for Humanity, very much like a father talking about his boy being in some sort of club being used as a source for the club. WP:USEPRIMARYGraywalls (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you use that logic, every author of every article might have some ulterior motive that disqualifies it from being a neutral source. Assume good faith.Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 10:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. It's not stated here but I'm assuming the target page for this Redirect would be Habitat for Humanity? If you want a Merge or Redirect (or Keep), please spell it out. Right now, we need more than the two participants to weigh in. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(!vote updated after following discussion and cleanup) Merge to Habitat for Humanity or Weak keep Here's a very long article with SIGCOV in Planning magazine, based in Chicago and published by American Planning Association. [1]. It discusses issues around the subject's constructions in some depth, but also discusses how those issues reflect on the parent org. At over 3300 words total I think this is pretty good evidence that the subject is, itself, notable. —siroχo 05:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you describe how it is written such that it is about Habitat of Humanity of Jacksonville rather than just Habitat of Humanity? For example, does it talk about Habitat of Humanity active that happens to be in Jacksonville, or does it talk about it in terms of HabiJax activity? I can't access the source. so sorry. Graywalls (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It regularly distinguishes the actions of the HabiJax organization and responses to it. Sometimes it will explain how the actions of the smaller organization relate to the larger one, noting how the larger org works, and distinguishing HabiJax from it.
It discusses in depth construction at "Fairway Oaks" entirely in the context of HabiJax, no mention of the parent org. It discusses the city of Jacksonville's response to this and why the controversy is unusual, both locally and within the larger scope of the parent org and the country.
I guess, you could think of this article as treating the subject as a case study. I would say, at the very least, Fairway Oaks meets WP:N based on this and the sources already in the article, and as such, a delete would not be ideal for the encyclopedia. I would reserve a complex "repurpose" outcome for cases where I don't see notability. I don't personally see a need to fragment the topic to cover only the one housing development, given that the coverage of such an article would focus on this articles subject anyways, and there is other coverage of the subject. As such, I lean toward keeping this article.
This was not intended as a delete in the first place. I re-directed, but Mgreason objected. I wasn't really sure how to process it, so I did a redirect for discussion but Ivanvector suggests that's not how to do it, so they opened it as an AfD. Intention has been to merge into Habitat for Humanity and do a section for HabiJax there. Graywalls (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, the current HabiJax article is far from perfect, but the Habitat for Humanity article is a mess, nobody's fault, just slowly grew that way over several years. While I'm not fundamentally opposed to such a merge, I don't see how it would improve things in their current state. For example, it would take a fair bit of research to evaluate DUE weight to the Fairway Oaks topic within that broader topic, etc.
If you're actively cleaning up that article (I saw you made a few improvements), thank you for that. Maybe it will soon reach a state where a merge would be a better outcome.
I am in support of cleanup efforts. I am hesitate to prescribe a merge in this situation when it isn't strictly necessary because it could make the current state worse, and harder to clean up. —siroχo 23:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo:, the target has been almost completely cleaned up. Please check. Graywalls (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It looks much better. I'm not opposed to a merge at this point. I think Fairway Oaks and maybe the Superbuild can be merged pretty safely without getting too UNDUE. Maybe some other verifiable information like a bit about the HabiJax CEO. Not sure on some of it.
I specifically worry the "Tiny houses" section might be a bit UNDUE in either article, and possibly astroturfed. Generally, there's been some major astroturfing about tiny houses over the past several years, and in this article it's all from one local source and funded by one named "Tiny House Fund". —siroχo 04:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Would you mind reflecting your input to your !vote? Graywalls (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to ping. @Siroxo I heard if you just add the ping at the end of the comment, it won't go through. Is that so? Graywalls (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Notifications says you need to ping and sign, so that might be why it doesn't work if you only add it without signing again in the same edit. I'm not 100% sure tho. —siroχo 07:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 16:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:CHAIN makes a quite compelling argument if the subject is not notable. As the guidelines state, In rare cases, an individual location will have (history) that makes it notable.
I've yet to be convinced this as an example of a rare case. Graywalls (talk) 00:01, 28 August 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.