Talk:Center for HIV Law and Policy

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (it covers the work of a civil rights organization like the ACLU and Lambda Legal. Even though those organizations carry out work on behalf of LGBT and HIV-positive people -- even if the work is controversial -- the entities doing that work are still featured on Wikipedia. The issue at the heart of this so-called "controversial topic" is already featured in Wikipedia under "criminal transmission of HIV" and that entry includes pre-existing references to the organization being described here. Just because HIV is "controversial" does not warrant deleting this information from the the public. And just because an organization does controversial work, it does not warrant excluding that organizations work on behalf of marginalized communities from wikipedia.) --Iem207 (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because HIV decriminalization is an important topic of public interest. On that as an over arching theme is already approved and a part of the Wikipedia community. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV_in_the_United_States and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV

Both pages which are uncontested and already cite the Center's work frequently within the pages. There is no reason to cite this page for deletion while leaving those to up if the problem is content.

Furthermore, the general public has a right not know and observe the work of a center that has recently partnered with Columbia Law School and has been featured in the New York Times. As is evident via the cites. While the initial page may seem like it only serves to promote the center, this is a non profit organization in which in no way benefits from wikipedia solicitation.

To delete this while allowing the other 77 Pages in category "LGBT political advocacy groups in the United States" such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Equality_(organization)or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulforce would be very unjust to the free and open course community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.49.182 (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it does indicate the importance or significance of the subject, and is not excessively promotional.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - I think that there is enough here to at least indicate the possibility of the subject meeting notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The primary issue this article has, with regard to notability, is that the only references to this Center for HIV Law and Policy lie in self-created content. A Google search for "Center for HIV Law and Policy" bring up only a handful of results, all written by individuals affiliated with the organization. By approving this article for inclusion in Wikipedia, Wikipedia has, in essence, given recognition an entity that henceforth had no validity as a renown organization. Ormr2014 (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, in my opinion, Ormr2014. Take it instead to Articles for Deletion, where there can be a broader debate, and an opportunity to find better sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A Google Scholar search seems to indicate some level of notability. [1]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I did view the results at [2] and had you actually taken the time to peruse those results, you'd find that there are a small number of documents authored by individuals directly associated with Center for HIV Law and Policy and many of the other references have actually been removed completely from the pages linked. That there are actually results in Google Scholar when searching for Center for HIV Law and Policy does not necessarily qualify it as an entity of notability. In fact, an article my own father, John MacDonald, wrote for the Nature Publishing Group shows up under his name in Google Scholar, yet I assure you he is neither famous nor notable.

Unlike me, a virtual unknown with no real authority here, you have the ability to do as you please and you've obviously made up your mind to include this article with no real attempt to illustrate notability aside from a cursory search in Google Scholar. So who am I to argue further? By all means, enjoy your authority and have a wonderful day... Ormr2014 (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Please assume good faith as neither Andy nor I have concluded that the article should stay, but rather that a full Articles for Deletion debate is appropriate in this case. Speedy deletion should be reserved for uncontested cases, and this is not one of them. Neither Andy nor I are administrators and we have no more power than you. So there is no need for sarcasm, Ormr2014. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the assertion that "Speedy deletion should be reserved for uncontested cases" is not really accurate. In the time that I have been using and editing Wikipedia, I have never seen a Speedy Deletion nomination that was actually discussed first. In fact, were what you said the case, why would it even be an option for un-reviewed proposed articles (you are familiar with the Page Curation tool, right?). And actually, your claim that you have not "concluded that the article should stay" became a moot point when the two of you conspired to have it removed from the list of articles being considered for deletion. In any event, I am through with this discussion. Keep the article in Wikipedia and discuss it till you're blue in the face if you like, but don't expect me to discuss it with you. And please keep the discussion here where it belongs; any additional attempts to discuss it on my personal Talk Page will be deleted and considered spam. Thanks. Ormr2014 (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)