Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Animal Rights Coalition (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Animal Rights Coalition

[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)

This article was started by a sockpuppeting single-purpose account and is now the focus of another SPA who appears to be connected to the group. Google finds 111 unique results. There is some referenciness in the form of a couple of local news stories that mention the group, but most of the sources that were in the article did not mention them. Other than a few namechecks, Google shows no substantive reliable sources, and (per WP:GNG) I am unable to trace a single reliable independent source that is actually about this group, rather than simply mentioning them. Guy (help!) 10:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable organisation which doesn't meet GNG; also cannot find independent, reliable sources. The sources currently given in the article don't go beyond a trivial mention, with one or two quotes from the organisation in relation to a different matter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are multiple independent articles which reference the organisation, beyond a trivial mention. The guidelines are clear that it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I appreciate that some of the references are not up to standard, and I will edit accordingly, but I do not think deletion is appropriate.Hufflife (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen - I just went through all of the citations to see what was there. MOST of the citations do not mention SARC at all and only exist to support the "stories" in the wiki article. Those citations that do mention SARC are mostly a statement by a SARC person saying "we are opposed to somethingerother" (primary source, and not very substantive). There is at least one citation which says the group actually DID something ("The Southern Animal Rights Coalition (Sarc) organises a weekly picket of his shop, Furry Friends, in The Square, Barnham, every Sunday. The group has also distributed leaflets to every household in Barnham.") but even that is unremarkable and alone wouldn't get media attention. If you trim out all the content supported solely by primary sources (SARC said they did it, or SARC's website) and everything where SARC was merely mentioned, you wouldn't have much left of the article. And for a 13-year old wiki article to be that full of fluff and no substance, that tells me that SARC was never notable in the GNG sense. That's the problem with "movements" (ideas) that try so hard not to be "organizations" (IRL people) so they can't be caught and stopped, that the only 'press' they get is when they proclaim "That was us; we did that act." But no one can verify it because there were no witnesses, and no human was willing to come forward to say "I did that." It's only when someone gets arrested and they claim association with such a group that the press can say "Oh, GroupX did that!" and hence they get some notability. Seems like SARC falls into that category. Their website was last active in 2010. I'd say defunct, but also non-notable. Normal Op (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Earlier today I was working on List of animal rights groups and was shocked to see the duplication of material because multiple groups claimed to be the cause of ProjectXYZ that resulted in some shared goal (amongst animal rights) being accomplished. So the articles of each and every group or movement that had an opinion on ProjectXYZ would get the same coverage in their wiki article as if they were the one who accomplished the goal and this was one of their trophies. I think I read that "goat story" about five times today! This area of Wikipedia needs a bunch of cleanup work. Normal Op (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 14:30, 15 July 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.