Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equality Mississippi


 * 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. Carlossuarez46 04:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Equality Mississippi

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:ORG says organizations need to be national in scope to be notable enough for inclusion. Therefore, this group is too local.  New England  Review Me!/ Go Red Sox! 00:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions.  —Becksguy 19:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorrect WP:ORG gives the guideline that non-commercial organizations that aren't international or national usually aren't notable unless they meet the policy WP:V: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found."  Please consider each of these "Equality"-group articles based on searches for substantial and/or multiple coverage by reliable sources, not on whether they're local or statewide or national. Barno 00:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The "Equality [State Name]" organizations seem to be representing a significant movement associated with the Gay Rights issue, and there are organizations in a number of states, including California. There's quite a bit on Google about them, and some of the links found there represent independent sources, as expected by WP:ORG.  See, also, this set of criteria.  The organization isn't as large as California's, for example, which hasn't been nominated for deletion, but then again, there aren't as many openly gay people in Mississippi, I would imagine!  ;)  - Nascentatheist 01:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Org is seven years old, has google results. Organisations don't have to be national to be notable. Fosnez 03:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Self sourced. Does not establish any notibility from media/publications. fails WP:CORP.--Dacium 03:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep With added NPOV and Wikify tags Mbisanz 05:56, 30 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) 06:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - When you click the Talk link, you're taken to a page that says, "This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia." You can't ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia, if you're deleting part of LGBT related issues. Part does not equal all. Futher, the organization has garnered not just national attention and acceptance, but world-wide attention and acceptance. Equality Mississippi has been reported on by CNN, FOX News, ABC News, BBC News and several others. This organization is recognized by the Human Rights Campaign, Equality Federation, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, all national LGBT rights organizations, as their partner in Mississippi. As noted on the page, this organization also wrote part of the historic argument against sodomy laws, for the United States Supreme Court. You can't get any more national than arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court. Deletion of this historic organization (who says equality Mississippi is an oxymoron?) would be tantamount to deleting all 1960's Mississippi related civil rights entries on Wikipedia beause, well, they happened in Mississippi and not anywhere else. Thanks for your time and consideration. Do not delete. Allstarecho 14:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you add specific citations to the article? If individual reporting by national TV/radio organizations has been as broad as you suggest, then this will meet WP's requirements.  As it stands, the article has no independent sources. Barno 15:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, with age, most public links to national coverage have been moved or removed. I have all of the links, dating back to 2000 but most are now dead links. I was able to find the ABC News story. I also found several stories from The Advocate, a national news magazine. If would like those links, I can provide. I found 5 of them. Further, I found a story in Christianity Today magazine and a story in Pentecostal Evangel magazine, both national magazines. Futher, there are stories available on the internet from regional media such as Southern Voice, which covers most of the Southern states. A simple Google News search brings back numerous results. You must also keep in mind that while some news stories appear to be in, and come from, local news outlets, these are Associated Press stories, which is a national news organization. Thank you. Allstarecho 18:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Further: I just read where  New England  has marked several statewide gay organizations for deletion. See the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. This of course brings into question the motive here, especially since included in that list is MassEquality. If we're basing this decision off of national media coverage, there's no other organization out there that has gotten more than MassEquality thanks to the state's passage of legislation allowing and acknowledging same-sex marriage. Again, as pointed out above, the policy WP:V: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." A simple Google/Yahoo/MSN search returns hundreds of reliable independent sources. Allstarecho 23:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Still Further: I just found a USA Today article.  Al ls ta re ch o&trade;  10:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - it is a complete fallacy that organisations have to be national to be notable, though this one could do with some better referencing -- Roleplayer 20:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tagishsimon, SatyrTN and kdogg36 from list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. • Lawrence Cohen  13:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: as I do not think the references support in a non-trivial way the notability of the organization. For example, the CNN article simply quotes them "Jody Renaldo, executive director of the gay-rights group Equality Mississippi, said that the state law makes gay marriage "a non-issue."" as a paragraph added on to a long article about the subject. (That's all it says--this is not a substantial reference to the importance of the group.) I hope their cause succeeds in Mississippi as everywhere else,  but state branches of a national organization are almost never independently notable, and this is no exception.  A walled garden of local articles. We have to separate an objective consideration of the organization from our devotion to the issue. Nominating them is not POINT, unless the point is that WP is not for PR.  DGG (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments: First, your userpage says you're an inclusionist -- you could have fooled me. :-p Second, just as a point of information, this organization is not a state branch of a national organization (this is also true of the other organizations currently listed at the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions.)  There is something called the "Equality Federation" which includes most such groups, but it's a loose, a posteriori federation of the groups for purposes like sharing resources or information.  Finally, I think the POINT suggestion was because the user nominated lots of similar articles for deletion all at once, when there's no reason this matter couldn't have been discussed on the talk pages first. kdogg36 12:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments: Equality Mississippi is not a branch or chapter of any other organization, national or otherwise. It's a sovereign organization.  Al ls ta re ch o&trade;  01:14, 5 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.