Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alabama Together


 * 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. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Alabama Together

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable political group. The NYTimes and USAToday mentions are both trivial, and none of the independent references appear to be substantial. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. This is a thorough article about a statewide group, and I'm a bit surprised to see it nominated for deletion. It does have some NPOV issues but that does not a deletion make.  Two of the articles cited (which OP dismisses as insubstantial) are explicitly dedicated to the group (in the Auburn Villager and Auburn Plainsman) and another article (from the Anniston Star) might as well be, because it centers around the group's activity.  The shortest of them is just under 400 words - the longest, over 1000.  To me, these clearly meet the standards for significance, independence and reliability.  They are also clearly secondary.  I think audience breadth is a fair question, but I think the coverage is demonstrably regional, not local (as is the group's membership) and the NYT and USA Today mentions put it over the top as a statewide manifestation of a national phenomenon.  --Vivisel (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Vivisel. Both the Auburn Villager and Auburn Plainsman articles meet WP:GNG: they are reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of this group. Notability is thus established per Vivisel's arguments, according to the General Notability Guideline. I agree with the AfD nominator that the NY Times and USA Today do not provide significant coverage, but this is irrelevant to the notability question, because newspapers from Alabama qualify as reliable, independent sources just as much as newspapers from other states. Yetisyny (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as stated by Vivisel, the sources provide sufficient coverage and would seem reliable enough to qualify as suitable sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2018 (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.