Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising: No source article covers the history or "biographical" information about THIS ORGANIZATION; the sources only cover ONE EVENT WP:1E ; the organization itsself is only briefly mentioned in the sources, most of which are poor sources ( WP:NATIONALREVIEW ), or WP:PRIMARY sources like the justice department releases, or self-sourced.  THE EVENT **MAY** be notable, but NOT the ORGANIZATION.  --- Avatar317 (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] STRONG KEEP: I strongly disagree with the proposal to delete this article.  The event that discovered the five late-term fetuses is absolutely notable (I appreciate the proposer for recognizing that), and if the event was the only thing related to this organization, then I would probably agree that we can instead have an article specifically for that event.  However , there are two very notable events related to this organization.  Other than the discovery of the 5 late-term fetuses and hundreds of early-term ones, there is also a separate case where members of this organization were arrested for violations of the FACE Act, which has garnered a LOT of notability.  They bombarded and blocked abortion clinics, and are equally, if not more notable than Democrats for Life of America .  I agree that some of the sourcing must be fixed, but I ask that the person who proposed this recognize the fact that there are numerous events that have made this organization notable.  I also ask that the proposer give this article a chance to have its sources improved before it is nominated for such a deletion.  I understand the proposers concern and argument, but I ask that the proposer consider mine as well.  DocZach ( talk ) 20:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have just updated the article to remove the Natioof-olitical-warnal Review citations.  DocZach ( talk ) 20:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] STRONG KEEP: The issue of abortion is an ongoing tug-of-political-war in the United States.  And as illustrated above, the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising is no less important than all the other articles of various aspects of the issue.  — Maile ( talk ) 00:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability WP:N has nothing to do with what you think is important.   It has to do with whether or not the subject is covered in Reliable Sources.  --- Avatar317 (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SPEEDY KEEP: The subject is covered in reliable sources, and there are over two MAJOR events that this organization is known for.  Maile didn't say it's what he thinks is important, he said that the PAAU article is simply not of less importance to other relevant articles on the issue.  For example, there's less notability and sources for the Center for Reproductive Rights article, yet that article is still allowed to remain.  Your proposal is incorrect because you claim that the sources only cover ONE EVENT, when in-fact, there are at least two major events covered by reliable sources.  The FACE Act incident, and the discovery of the bodies are SEPARATE incidents and events.  The poor source you claimed was in the article was removed and replaced, and therefore, because [1] the proposal is false in that it claims there is only one event covered, and [2] the sources in dispute were fixed/removed/replaced, this proposal should should be closed and a SPEEDY KEEP should be enacted.  Per Wikipedia:Speedy keep , number one and number three apply here to justify a speedy closure of this nomination to maintain the article's existence.  The proposal is erroneous in that it falsely claims the organization is only known for one event and that the sources only reference one specific event (which is false).  And furthermore, the proposer claims that there is no "biographical" information of this organization, which is FALSE .  THERE IS A BIOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION OF PAAU RIGHT HERE, CONTRARY TO THE PROPOSER'S CLAIM: NEW YORK TIMES: "Kristin Turner, the communications director for Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising. Some relative newcomers to the anti-abortion movement include young women whose activism is not connected to religious belief. [...] Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, whose goals include educating the public about 'the exploitative influence of the Abortion Industrial Complex through an anti-capitalist lens.' [...] Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, founded last year, emphasizes “direct action,” including “pink-rose rescues,” in which activists enter abortion clinics to distribute roses attached to anti-abortion information." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/us/pro-life-young-women-roe-abortion.html DocZach ( talk ) 02:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment To editors coming to this deletion discussion now and after, please stop Bolding and CAPITALIZING words.  As an admin that has closed hundreds of AFDs, this wordplay is just distracting and doesn't make your opinion any more important than other editor's opinions.  It's not how flashy your words are but the argument you are putting forth.  So, please, no more bolding or ALLCAPs in responses here.  Thank you.  L iz Read!  Talk!  07:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: My apologies.  I am used to emphasizing the important points of my arguments with formatting, so that's my bad.  @ Liz DocZach ( talk ) 08:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I see extant sourcing in the article covering multiple individual events.  Taken as a whole, this appears to be sufficient coverage to form the basis of an article on the group itself.  There are POV/copyediting issues like the mission statement in the lead sentence, but those are cleanup items that don't drive a need for deletion.  VQuakr ( talk ) 23:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - There's some coverage that isn't limited to the "115 fetuses" incident, so it's possible it scrapes by GNG.  Is there a potential merge target?  I almost ! voted delete per WP:TNT because the article was a POV disaster, but I just tried to fix some of it so it's less an extension of the group's own website.  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Rhododendrites : At risk of partly duplicating my comments below, the group's founder ( Terrisa Bukovinac ) does have an article that was kept at AfD.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:TNT as above.  The article creator seems intent on forcing the POV and BLP problems into the article.  I see now that it was even declined by MaxnaCarta at AfC specifically for POV reasons, but the article creator just moved it into mainspace anyway.  If other users were substantially involved, I wouldn't push for deletion, but since it's such a borderline notability case and the article is in the state it is, IMO we should just blow it up.  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per  VQuakr.  -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk ) 18:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Delete - The topic of abortion is notable, and it has an article.  An Organisation dedicated to deal with a notable topic is not necessarily notable.  This is akin to me founding an Apple iphone club and then claiming notability for an article because I was involved in the theft of iphones from a warehouse and am called on for comment.  The coverage does not cover this organisation indepth.  Not every pro/anti abortion organisation is notable.  They must meet NORG like any other.  The events the organisation is tied to aren't relevant.  What is relevant that there is significant, sustained coverage detailing the organisation in-depth.  There isn't any.  It's trivial mentions and quotations - these do not constitute significant coverage.  — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Updating my vote to a redirect as an ATD — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I'd like to remind everyone that this article qualifies for a SPEEDY KEEP , considering the fact that the proposal itself is deceptive and incorrect.  It claims there is only one event, when that is obviously false if the proposer took a minute to read the article.  And furthermore, the proposer lied about there being no biographical coverage.  @ Rhododendrites , your idea of a POV issue seems quite strange to me, and I need you to explain further.  And in regards to @ MaxnaCarta , the events the organization is tied to is absolutely part of what notability consists of, and I already provided sources showing in-depth explanations of the organization itself.  So your question about "What is relevant that there is significant, sustained coverage detailing the organisation in-depth" was already answered, please look above.  DocZach ( talk ) 07:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It absolutely does not qualify as a speedy keep, no matter how many times you bold and capitalise the two words.  I also take issue with you calling the nomination deceptive.  It is not.  AGF.  At any rate, I believe the nomination is absolutely spot on.  The event is notable, the organisation is not.  Also, merely the event being notable doesn’t necessitate a standalone article per WP:PAGEDECIDE.  You should have listened to the two declines made at AFC before moving it to main space.  — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To second this: the nomination clearly does not meet any of the narrow criteria listed at WP:SKCRIT .  @ DocZach : please have a look at WP:REPETITION .  Repeating yourself makes it less , not more, likely a reasoning will be accepted.  Also the POV issues are quite blatant and have been immediately apparent to every uninvolved editor that's looked at the article, myself included: as of right now there's even a mission statement in the 2nd sentence of the lead!  VQuakr ( talk ) 18:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have removed the mission statement from the second sentence of the lead.  DocZach ( talk ) 19:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources: So from the RS's currently in the article, we have two sources that provide slightly more information about the group than this example quote typical of all these sources, which only mention the group as a side comment in the 5 fetus event, for example "...Lauren Handy, a well-known local antiabortion protester and director of activism for Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising."  1) The NYT mentioned above, with some small comments about the org, and  2) Vice [22] mentions PAAU 15 times but never profiles the organization, other than to say that it is one organization re-doing the "rescue" idea, uses TikTok, and is small: Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising is still not one of the major players in the anti-abortion world; it has just over 4,300 followers on TikTok.  (The similarly youth-focused Students for Life has over 54,000 followers.)  Can any editor who supports keeping this article provide quotes from Reliable Sources that provide more info about this organization to show WP:NORG : "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar317 ( talk • contribs ) 01:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The relevant notability guideline here is WP:NGO : The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.  The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.  In addition to the sourcing in the article and discussed here, I'm also seeing significant coverage from KFF Health News (KFF being Kaiser Family Foundation after a rebrand, and also republished by The Daily Beast ).  The piece is focused solely on the group, and talks extensively talks about the group, its strategy and tactics, its leadership, and to some extent its public reception.  This doesn't seem like a WP:1E -sort of thing, so the only question that took me a while is whether this meets criterion No. 1 of the NGO guideline.  And for this reason, I'm refraining from leaving a bold ! vote, since I'm not quite able to get a good handle on whether this group is active outside of the DMV area or if this is a local group that happens to be active in the nation's capital.  On a separate note, I do note that the group's founder ( Terrisa Bukovinac ) has an article, so in the event that we feel that this NGO is non-notable we might want to merge some content to the article on the founder.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Aoidh ( talk ) 16:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding to my ! vote above: For the record, I'm not opposed to redirecting to Terrisa Bukovinac .  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree, a redirect to Bukovinac is probably a better option than keeping a stand alone article about the marginally-notable organization.  VQuakr ( talk ) 21:26, 18 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect