Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality Policy Watch

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. No one asserted that the subject met WP:NCORP, so the real issue was whether the GNG was met. While there were a number of sources produced, the analysis provided by the editors favoring deletion find them unsuitable was not rebutted. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality Policy Watch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP which states:-A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject........The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. ....

Let's analyse the current sourcing:-

(1, 3 and 5)--.A BBC news piece, an IPS one and another one from Guardian inwhere two-line bytes from people belonging to SPW have been featured. None devotes any minimal coverage to the subject of the article. N

Ref 2 and 6--. Both are the About us page on their own website. N

Ref 4--> Genderit.org shows page missing. N

I performed a thorough search to the best of my abilities but did not locate any significant coverage that satisfied NCORP. ∯WBG^converse 12:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I searched on the group's previous name, "International Working Group on Sexuality and Social Policy" in google news and found nothing valereee (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As someone who's been a women's rights activist from the global South for many decades, I know from experience that this is a significant global organisation doing important policy work, but as always, organisations that are based in the global South or in areas of less obvious public attention (like women's rights) tend to have fewer significant mentions in secondary sources and certainly not always in English. This is a deeper structural imbalance that we need to be aware of, and work to correct as Wikipedians and beyond. As the original author of the stub, I take the concerns on board. I'll certainly update the gender.it link (thanks for pointing that out), and I'm looking at PT sources that may bolster the article. In the meantime, I'm grateful to Joalpe for improving Sonia Corrêa's article with some of the content from this one. Anasuyas (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I quite concur with your observations but wikipedian writers don't have any huge part in the battle to counter it. If I see at-least 2 sources of enough reliability that significantly covers the organization, I can understand but as things stand, we have nothing.
• On a sidenote, AfDs don't discriminate between English and non English sources, so if you see a reliable source in some other language covering it significantly, by all means mention them.
• As to working to correcting the bias, the best way is to do the groundwork so that these organizations do get mentioned across RD and we will reciprocate over here. ∯WBG^converse 09:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I’ve added some more references, including a couple of Portuguese ones. Mccapra (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Please re-read NCORP which is miles more rigid than what you are providing us with.

  This source yet again accords a trivial mention; as one among 5 organisations that collaborated to give a report on a certain issue. Most importantly; the report was sketched of their own will. I would have given more thoughts; if they were appointed by some highly reliable organisation to write it or anything similar.

  Another of your source covers Sonia; not the subject and the sole mention is utterly trivial. (vide Sonia Corrêa is a feminist and researcher in gender studies, with numerous publications in the area of ​​women's sexual and reproductive rights. Since 2002, she has also co-coordinated with Richard Parker (USA / Brazil), the global forum Sexuality Policy Watch and an associate researcher at the Brazilian Interdisciplinary AIDS Association (ABIA) and the Department of Gender Studies at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

  Yet again a biography of Correa and a mention like the above one. ∯WBG^converse 09:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep appears to both satisfy our notability requirements and to be a significant international academic organisation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It's amazing about how you equate a piece published by Correa (who heads the organisation) about itself to lend to notability. Textbook violation of intellectual independence.

  Thus, explain how this passes NCORP, please.∯WBG^converse 17:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent reliable soruces as required by WP:CORPDEPTH. A Google News search for "Sexuality Policy Watch" yield a grand total of 22 hits (a mixture of passing mentions, blogs etc.) but nothing that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORP. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I can't find anything that rings the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A news search brings back some fruitful hits. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ritchie333, after all the bytes spent on this page, you can be assured that I know of exploiting a news-search. From when did notability boil down to having Ghits in News? Where do you see significant coverage? ∯WBG^converse 18:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is, some of the useful sources are in Portuguese. However, this one, showing the group's opinion about the press commenting on Marcela Temer, could also be used to expand the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the stuff that has been already discussed above. It's the same old story about Sonia Correa (who is damn notable) saying something or an interview of her or a profile or her and SPW is thrown in as a qualifier. FWIW; Sonia Correa, who coordinates the local website Sexuality Policy Watch, says XYZ does not mean SPW says XYZ. It's a typical habit of media units to describe the relevant activities of a person, in a phrase or so, when quoting them. Notability is not inherited.

I again ask for 2 sources of enough reliability that significantly covers the organization. ∯WBG^converse 19:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indepenedent sources discussing the subject directly in detail. --Pontificalibus 08:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ritchie333 . It's a highly influential global forum founded by three of the worlds most elite activist academics. I agree sources are a little thin, especially as the forum has been such a key actor in the quest for erotic justice. They'd probably have got much more coverage in the regular press if only they'd titled themselves Sexual Justice Watch. There does though seem to be quite extensive coverage in academic sources, albeit it takes a while to ferret it out. To point out the requested specific two sources that cover the forum in depth, I'm suggesting it would be sufficient to consider the spotlight profile and the Routledge book Technologies of Sexuality, Identity and Sexual Health (2012), which devotes many pages to very indepth description of SPW's work. Also, while WBG well describes the reasons why most of the other sources confer little notability, they do seem to add a little when taken collectively, along with the many other sources not yet added to the article that Ritchie summarises. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The claims of raising this to GA is absolute bunkum. You've been here for long long enough to know our GA standards.

  Also, someone writing in the preface of his book, that he was inspired to write the book after attending a conference, one of whose organizers was SPW, is not enough to impart notability to SPW. And, please don't add such stuff to the article which resembles an attempt to ref-bomb and spam.

  A write-up (~ a paragraph) by all of it's co-founders in a self-written-book (though published by Routledge) does not demonstrate notability either; for it is the textbook definition of violation of intellectual independence. FWIW, the passage states:-Since 2002, inspired by both local and international initiatives, the three of us have worked together to found and develop Sexuality Policy Watch (SPW), a global forum of researchers and activists from a wide range of countries and regions. SPW aims at contributing to sexuality-related global policy debates through strategic research and analysis, and at promoting more effective linkages between local, regional, and global efforts to change prevailing unjust policies.

  I am willing to look at any other source, that you dig out.∯WBG^converse 11:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for evaluating my two sources. I skimmed several others, but the Manderson book looked by far the best for conferring notability, and as you weren't impressed with that it seems pointless to submit the others. Hopefully someone else will find a better source. Per SPW's work in a good cause, it seems a shame for this article to be destroyed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I see this is still being discussed. After reading the various comments posted since my last, I still see nothing that would ring the WP:N bell. Accordingly I reaffirm my delete !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2019 (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.