Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Make Justice Work

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 keep. Userfying v/r - T P 03:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make Justice Work

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

I am unable to locate significant secondary reliable source coverage to establish notability for this organization. I have turned up many passing references, that seem to always be linked to one of the key people, Roma Hooper, such as these BBC [1] that says, "Roma Hooper, director of Make Justice Work, which campaigns to highlight the cost of locking up non-violent offenders, said..." and the Burnley Citizen [2], which says, "Roma Hooper, director of Make Justice Work, which campaigns to reform short-term prison sentences, said...." and the Scotsman [3] which says, "However, Roma Hooper, director of Make Justice Work, which backs the policy, said...". There are claims of having "over one hundred" notable "Ambassadors" for the organization. But notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability per WP:ORG. There may be enough on Roma Hooper for a separate article, but that is a separate issue as notability is not inherited. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I agree everything seems to trace back to Roma Hooper, the campaign founde, who seems to be a one-person publicity machine. There are hints that the campaign has had an impact on official government channels. In effect there is only one weak news source in The Guardian, while the Sun article admits it is an unabashed copy. If one other independent in-depth news source can be identified, I might change my 'vote'. Sionk (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update from page author - I have updated the page with more information and numerous reliable sources, including direct responses to questions about the final report by a UK Cabinet minister in the house of commons. Please remove the deletion notice.Toomanyairmiles (Toomanyairmiles) 02:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a constructive solution would be to write an article on the "Community or Custody" report, based on the sources and information that has provided. It is currently a re-direct to Make Justice Work but, in my view, it is a far better topic for an article. Most of the sources mention the Report in significant detail, while the group behind it is largely unmentioned. Sionk (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sionk, yes, I would like to create a standalone page about the report eventually, but it's significance hangs on events currently taking place in the house of lords. What i'd really like to do is write about community sentencing models in the UK, but literally everyone involved in the sector from an academic, parliamentary and legal standpoint is an MJW ambassador and almost all of the evidence that this is a good thing to do comes from two of MJW's reports and the com-res survey they commissioned. It's actually very hard to reference the evidence without referencing MJW in some way. Toomanyairmiles (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very weak delete~~ before the recent updates, I would have sided with Delete as the organization does not seem to have notability outside Roma Hooper's PR machine, as previously mentioned. However, there are 2 new cites to the related topic "Community or Custody enquiry" as having been mentioned by Tom Brake MP and Lord Dholakia during official British government business. This isn't exactly Make Justice Work itself, but it's close... however, even these mentions were made at the request of Make Justice Work, and the Government's reply to the question is generic and doesn't mention either the report or Make Justice Work, it's just a vapid politician response. I'd really like to see some other, independent and genuine notice of the organization. Zad68 (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zad68 the newsletter you refer to is actually discussing the an amendment to the forthcoming justice bill tabled by Tom Brake and proposed by MJW, the question precedes the amendment, I've added a more specific entry about the parliamentary question, but I can't talk about the amendment without citing original research. I did try and add some other independent notice of the organisation but coming from the Law Societies journal, but it was rejected by ConcernedVancouverite who threatened to ban me if I added another similar linkToomanyairmiles (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this, my !vote is now Userify (or incubate) I bet this will be a worthy topic soon, but not quite just yet. Give it a week or three and as soon as we can get a quality newspaper cite it'll probably qualify. Zad68 (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, or Incubate per WP:CRYSTAL - like sunny-side-up eggs, it's not quite ready yet. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 05:29, 29 March 2012 (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.