Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just Detention International

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. Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just Detention International

[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 has been tagged as lacking sources since 2011. Most of it was written by a handful of single purpose accounts. I have tried to find anything about them that's not a press release, without success. It appears to be a project of Russell Dan Smith, author of such peerless references as "Extraterrestrials And Sex",and the dates coincide with Smith's lawsuits.

Bluntly, this is advertising. It's also not notable. Superficial referenciness is provided by links to documents that are either self-published or do not discuss the subject at all, with one exception: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/226680.pdf, a mere namecheck. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs updating, and perhaps better sources, but the organization is apparently functioning. Here's a 2019 article from its executive director in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser: https://www.newspapers.com/image/572354279/?terms=just%2Bdetention%2Binternational BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a branch or an affiliate of a South African organization. https://www.bing.com/search?q=just+detention+international+south+africa&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The fact the organization still functions and has a South African office (mentioned in the article) does not equate to notability. Nor does the executive director having written one op-ed piece for a newspaper. On a side note, Russell Dan Smith also sued Wikimedia for hosting nudity among other things. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, the article reads very promotional. "Notable successes"? "Core beliefs"? Which is what Wikipedia is not. That aside, analyzing the references in the article:

1) and 2) are WP:PRIMARY, comes from the (former?) president of the company
3) Press release. WP:PRIMARY.
4) and 5) Same as 1).
6) The subject is not even mentioned.
8)WP:PRIMARY.
10) A passing mention (Just Detention International (JDI), the only US NGO dedicated solely to ending sexual abuse in detention, served on all eight of the expert committees appointed by the commission.)
11) WP:SECONDARY requires sources from people that aren't connected to the subject. That isn't the case here (Just Detention International (formerly Stop Prisoner Rape) played a

pivotal role in our public hearings)

12) Same as 1).
13), 14), 18), 21), 26), 27), 28) Sources I cannot access.
15), 16), 17), 19), 22), 29) Same as 1), all WP:PRIMARY
20), 24), 25) The subject is not mentioned.

In my searches I have found lots of passing mentions like, with a half-decent source in [1]. But not enough, so as such fails WP:NCORP. The BeenAroundAWhile's argument that the company is notable because it is functioning is not based in any policy or guidelines, plus the article mentioned is a WP:PRIMARY (comes from the exec-director). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:17, 6 September 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.