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. Once you strip away the mountains of off-topic commentary, there is reasonably good consensus here that insufficient high-quality sources exist to establish notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Legal Aid Society of Orange County (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)

I tried to improve this article but I'm not not sure if it's even marginally notable given that there aren't that many good sources and most of it was for the homelessness defense case and the others passing, primary or for a "Legal Aid Society of Orange County, Florida" (not entirely sure if it's related). My searches were here, here, here, here and here (note that I started adding "California" at the end to sort the relevant results). SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have struck my !vote above, not because I think this topic is not notable (it is notable), but because this AfD needs to end as soon as possible to prevent it from being used as a forum for off topic comments and personal attacks, and I want to remove any obstacle to it ending. James500 (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
how does it satisfy GNG? Most of the coverage is not in-depth or primary. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Most", in that context, isn't a valid argument for deletion. If any of the coverage is both secondary and significant, that will suffice, even if the rest isn't. James500 (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

can you please point to actual coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG? LibStar (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the real guideline (NRVE) says that an article is not to be deleted if it is likely that adequate sources exist, whether or not they are actually produced. James500 (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So this article should be deleted, because it is unlikely that adequate sources exist. Because, you know, people have looked and come up empty-handed. Reyk YO! 13:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not come up empty handed. I said so in express words above. James500 (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So where are they? Reyk YO! 13:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. I did not claim that sources must be out there somewhere. I expressly claimed to have personally found, seen and read sources that contain significant coverage etc that satisfy GNG. What do you think "I ... accept this satisfies GNG" means? James500 (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given your previous antics here and elsewhere, I do not believe you've found anything. I don't believe you've even looked. I think you just indiscriminately vote keep on every AfD you see. Reyk YO! 13:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given your previous antics, I'd say that was a bad faith lie, that you have deliberately said something about me that you know to be factually false. You must know, just from looking at the archives of DSLAW to begin with, that I do not !vote in every AfD I see; nor do I !vote indiscriminately. I have a very straightforward standard that I apply consistently: significant coverage is a decent sized paragraph in one source or coverage that adds up to one in multiple sources that do not individually contain significant coverage. You must also know that there is a magazine article cited in Legal Aid Society of Orange County that contains significant coverage: this one. I suspect you know that the other article I referred to above was this one. And you must know that there are other sources that discuss the society if you have looked at GNews and GBooks. If you read the edit notice that appears when you try to edit an AfD, you will notice that it instructs you to comment on the merits of the article and not on other editors. Kindly follow that instruction in future both in this discussion and all other AfDs. James500 (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's good that you've belatedly decided to look for sources just now, even if it took my rather pointed criticism for you to finally do it, but I guess I'm just not as impressed by trivial name drops and run-of-the-mill puff pieces as you are. As for WP:SPADE, no, I think I will continue to speak my mind and call out what I see as duplicitous behaviour in future. If you do not like that, you know the way to WP:ANI. Reyk YO! 12:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • These false accusations that you are making ought to stop as they constitute a personal attack. You know perfectly well that I was aware of these sources before I !voted (one of them was actually cited in the article, so there is no way that anyone could have failed to be aware of it: your claim to have imagined that I was not aware of it is completely implausible, because even a small child would have immediately realised that was not the case). It is clear to me, from the nature of your comments and our previous history, that the sole purpose of your false comments is to annoy me as much as possible, because you know that I find this kind of nonsense infuriating. James500 (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said: if you do not like me speaking my mind, ANI is thataway. I don't say things that I don't believe, and if I criticise someone's behaviour it's not because I want to annoy them but because I think their behaviour has genuinely been questionable. If my willingness to indulge bullshit is less than it was, it's from years of being hectored by wikilawyers and ultra-defensive screamers, and I see you doing a lot of that these days. Reyk YO! 21:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James, I get the impression that you attempt to annoy others in Afds, with ludicrous arguments such as snow keep and ineligible for deletion which is clearly not the case. Otherwise it's a case of lacking competency which others have previously raised. A number of editors have expressed concern about your argumentative style but you stubbornly continue. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

following you around? I was the first person to vote here and you popped up yesterday as the first person to comment on my AfD nomination. Seems like you are following me around. WP:KETTLE if I ever saw it. LibStar (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I reached this, and the others, via DSLAW. But I don't understand how you suddenly started reaching AfDs on judges, law journals and lawyers. They do not appear on the organisations deletion sorting list from which you could have reached this one. James500 (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and you have a sudden interest in Malaysian galleries? LibStar (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is on WP:DSLAW because it is the museum of a police force. I did not add it to that deletion sorting list, Necrothesp did. Nor did I argue that the museum should be kept, which puts paid to your accusations of bad faith. I'm sure you know that. How did you get to the AfDs on the Canadian tax judge, the Groningen law journal and the lawyer, nominated by Paperwario, whose name is something like Arkady Bush? James500 (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to ban LibStar or myself from AfDs that you have edited, go to ANI and propose a topic ban. You seem to be enthusiastic about trying to restrict who can participate at AfD and what they can say, so at least that would be consistent. Nobody who writes ridiculous idiotic bilge like that essay has any right to complain that others are shoving their ideology down his throat. Of course, if you did propose a topic ban you'd have to then explain how LibStar is "following" you to AfDs he edited before you did, or why there's anything wrong with keeping an eye on a hyper-inclusionist editor who has begun trying to invalidate perfectly proper AfDs with a lot of bizarre and erroneous wikilawyering. We wouldn't want anyone to be fooled by it. Reyk YO! 10:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes James500 , if you don't like my participation ask for a topic ban, you won't have much to stand on given your history of editing and writing the longest responses I've ever seen in afds, as per WP:BLUDGEON. Otherwise I will contribute to AfDs like any editor may. LibStar (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it's an essay that perfectly describes you. You consistently try to shout down opposing views with very long responses in afds. It's a deliberate tactic. I'm sure you'll respond with some long winded excuse ridden rant now LibStar (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I think you are already aware, I do not use any 'tactics' whatsoever anywhere or try to do any such thing. I certainly never 'rant'. If I was becoming angry, my comments would become shorter, not longer. If you must accuse me of something, I think it would have to be either being more intelligent than others (in the sense of having more thoughts to communicate in the first place) or being more diligent (in the sense of giving an adequate explanation when others don't). I don't think my comments are generally particularly verbose and there are many editors who are far more 'long winded', as you put it, than me. I note that you also frequently accuse me of not saying enough, about as often as you accuse me of saying too much, so I don't think you are being consistent either. And I could just as easily argue that your accusations of 'you talk too much' are themselves a deliberate tactic to silence opinions you don't like, or to win arguments by silencing the other side, by stopping the full facts from coming out, by stopping relevant arguments from being advanced (like putting someone on trial but not allowing anyone to speak properly in their defence). James500 (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I was becoming angry, my comments would become shorter, not longer. Another ludicrous statement. LibStar (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word about the lengthy discussion above: James500 is probably the foremost ultra-inclusionist active on Wikipedia these days, see his AfD stats (96 keep/speedy keep vs. 2 delete). During the last month he cast a lot of !votes without bolding them (which is required under WP:AFDFORMAT "Usually editors recommend a course of action in bold text") so the bot can't parse them. There were quite a few "keep" votes in AfDs which ended with a verdict of "delete". Kraxler (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
well spotted kraxler, James500 is deliberately not bolding votes to avoid detection. And when you add all the other behaviour it certainly adds up. Expect a long winded excuse ridden rant why he doesn't bold. LibStar (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been explained to you elsewhere, LibStar, at great length. And it has no relevance to whether Reyk had any business calling me a liar on strength of no evidence whatsoever. James500 (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Kraxler: The word "usually" does not imply a requirement. Saying that I am an ultra inclusionist is an invalid ad hominem argument that has nothing to do with the merits of the topic. Saying that my !votes have not always matched the outcomes of AfDs in the past is an invalid ad hominem argument that has nothing to do with the merits of the topic. It is wholly improper to invoke those statistics in an AfD as they have nothing to do with whether this topic satisfies GNG. Nor, for that matter, does it have anything to do with the discussion above. If you read the edit notice that appears when you try to edit an AfD, you'll notice that it says that commenting on another participant, instead of on the merits of the article, is a personal attack and is considered disruptive. James500 (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simple question, why don't you bold your votes like every single editor does? LibStar (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

let's see if you can't resist responding again. Remember more words means less angry. LibStar (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RE User:James500: You're mistaken, the bolding is required. I quote again "Usually editors recommend a course of action in bold text" And now let's parse it: "Usually editors recommend a course of action" but sometimes editors only reply to other editors, or post a question, or relist, or close a discussion. The "usually" qualifies that there are other options than to recommend a course of action. And now back to the text "... a course of action in bold text, e. g., "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", "Transclude" or other view. Some bots and tools which parse AfDs will only recognize bolded words, so following this convention is highly recommended.". That means that the "bold text" is inseparable from the course of action recommended. Once you decide to recommend a course of action (like "keep") it should be bolded. Period. The only reason not to do that is to escape bot parsing, as the guideline clearly states. So why do you refuse to do something that is "highly recommended"? Would you like to discuss this at WP:ANI? Kraxler (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
well said Kraxler. Deliberately and persistently avoiding community practice may be cause for WP:ANI. LibStar (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2015 (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.
More