Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equality Maryland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Tyrenius 01:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Equality Maryland
Too local in scope for inclusion per WP:ORG New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 00:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Becksguy 19:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Local scope does not prevent notability, so long as WP:V can be met. Not sure if that's the case here, but it's worth pointing out. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This is the author. :) I think this is a fair point, and will fully respect any consensus, but the relevant criterion reads thus: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." I think two defenses can be raised:
- (1) Is Equality Maryland "local in scope" in the sense intended here? It's not perfectly clear what "local" means -- I think a county chamber of commerce is clearly local, but is a statewide civil rights organization? This is an authentic question; I do not know that there's a definitive answer, but I would say that, if this criterion applies, then many other articles would be subject to deletion -- sticking only to very similar organizations, you'd have to start with Equality California, Equality Mississippi, Equality North Dakota, and MassEquality. I now see this last is in fact nominated for deletion, but I think that's definitely misplaced; that organization has had a very high profile nationally throughout the same-sex marriage saga going on in that state for the past few years. Which brings me to this...
- (2) Even granting that the organization is local in scope, the criterion says that verifiable information from reliable independent sources can show notability. I hope that I've done that with this article, with at least one citation from a major newspaper (Washington Post) and several others from local and major LGBT publications. kdogg36 01:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think a more standardized reference format would make kdogg's points more clear to others reviewing the article for deletion. Philwelch 01:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Judging by the references, this organisation satisfies WP:ORG --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Tagishsimon and reasonable degree of notability. - Nascentatheist 02:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The organization, like MassEquality, is mentioned in a number of New York Times articles. kdogg36 03:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment "Mentions" don't count. Citations should be to articles written about the subject, not articles mentioning them in passing. MarkBul 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I don't agree -- citations should support the facts to which they're attached in the Wikipedia article (which I think the citations in this article do). The entire article cited doesn't have to be about the subject. (Thanks, by the way, to Tagishsimon for reformatting the references to make them clear.) kdogg36 17:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment "Mentions" don't count. Citations should be to articles written about the subject, not articles mentioning them in passing. MarkBul 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - WP:POINT much? See Equality Maryland afd, MassEquality afd, Equality Mississippi afd and Kansas Equality Coalition afd -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Tagishsimon, SatyrTN and kdogg36. • Lawrence Cohen 13:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I'm shocked this even got to AfD. Pursey 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep as per other similar debates started by the same user previously. Given that the other discussions are rapidly leaning towards keep or no consensus, a new listing for the same disputed reason speaks volumes of the bias of the nominator. -- Roleplayer 22:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is a highly notable group, and the cites in the article support that. -- Kicking222 02:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Snowball keep per above.--JForget 01:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
