Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equality Mississippi (2nd nomination)


 * 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 as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Equality Mississippi
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

As the creator, and founder of the subject of, this article.. and as the organization is now defunct.. and as it's just almost impossible to find the sources that used to be available as most of them have been deleted at their web links, I'm bringing this to Afd. I'd rather see it deleted than continue on with the drive by littering of fact tags by IPs and regular users alike. I'd also prefer it be deleted rather than continue to be used as a piece to "press my buttons" so to speak by editors I've had negative interaction with who target the article to get at me (see the article's talk page archives for more on that). Thanks. -     allstar ▼ echo     23:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -      allstar ▼ echo     23:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Obviously. -     allstar ▼ echo     23:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful little article. --Simon Speed (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - a notable organization "in its day" (as recently as last year). This is a well-sourced article filled with encyclopedic information about an organzation that filed amicus curiae briefs with SCOTUS and advertised for the first time about sexuality issues in the Deep South.  Writing "Delete. Obviously." and that it annoys you are not valid arguments.  Once notable, always notable. Bearian (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - looks like there is enough notability for this subject. We don't delete an article just because a once active organization closes; nor do we delete it because it's a thorn in the side of the editor who created it. Lady  of  Shalott  02:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If we remove all of the content that's being challenged for sources, sources that can't be found any longer, there's really nothing left of the article, including its notability. I've been through this article a lot trying to address the concerns of the tag-litterers but I can't resurrect old sources and without sources, content can't be included. So what do you suggest? -     allstar ▼ echo     03:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there offline versions of sources disappearing from the web? Lady  of  Shalott  03:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With the organization shut-down, only the primary sources went offline. Please, focus on providing third part coverage about the organization. If none exists, them it's a real case of notability concern. --Damiens .rf 13:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  02:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  02:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Damiens - selectively trying just a couple of the references gives an AP article and a Southern Voice article specifically about Mississippi Gay Lobby and its activities. ASE, tag littering, while perhaps annoying, is still not a reason for deletion. Lady of  Shalott  04:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously, whatever frustrations are happening they will pass. Sourcing already exists and the wayback machine should recover most of the deleted one. -- Banj e  b oi   03:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is not temporary. There is a rule that says that.  It passed notability requirements before, so its fine now.   D r e a m Focus  05:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Drama - What about deleting just the unsourced claims? --Damiens .rf 13:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Pot, Meet Kettle - as I said above, then you're left with nothing notable and without notability, we delete articles. -   </i>  allstar ▼ echo     13:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If there's not independent third part coverage about the subject, then it's not notable and there should be no article. If there are independent third part coverage, it should be used to write the article (instead of using your personal account). --Damiens .rf 14:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At the time the article was created, the sources were everywhere as noted in the first Afd of this article. Over time, they have dried up from the internet. You can't just pull old sources out of thin air. As sources die and there's no more left, what's left to do? Strip the article of the unsourced. Then you're left with what? A former well sourced notable subject now unsourced and non-notable. Then what? Delete it. As much as you've been fighting to strip this article, I'm surprised to see you arguing against me trying to have the thing deleted. -  <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:7.4em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  allstar ▼ echo     19:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing against its deletion, not favoring it. I'm just for the deletion of the unsourced, potentially-self-promotional content. What are the sources you say went offline? Were those 3r part independent reliable sources? Or just the organization webpage, blogs and local papers? There article used to have no source at all when first nominated for deletion. Some time after the first AFD, the article contained 9 sources, but, with the notable exception of one written by yourself (the organization founder), none of them we're being used to backup statements about the organization itself (they where just references to tangential events mentioned, like lgbt laws development or some crimes, that didn't even mention Equality Mississipi).
 * Maybe this article should be deleted, not because sources are ofline (that would not be a valid reason), but because plain old lack of notability. Unless, of course, someone can point us to some non-trivial independent reference of this organization. --Damiens .rf 20:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And your recent tag littering today only further proves my justification for nominating this article for deletion. -  <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:7.4em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  allstar ▼ echo     21:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Aren't they the same article? In any case, I agree this is a valid mention on a reliable source. I'm not sure it closes the case on notability, but I don't have an opinion on that. I'll just make sure that, if the article is kept, everything on it will be based on such reliable sources. --Damiens .rf 16:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Damiens.rf seems to have a keen and overwhelming interest in LGBT people, I think we should support them in their passions as long as they are helpful to the project as a whole. Why they spend so much energy picking faults rather than just finding sourcing is another concern but it's good they spend so much energy trying to understand and relate to communities that are regularly marginalized and discriminated against. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   02:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - if someone can please show me the independent source that covered Equality Mississippi in depth as required by WP:ORG? All I can find via Google News are short quotations of Equality Mississippi members, but no news story that covers Equality Mississippi itself. Nothing in the article either that is both a reliable source and that covers Equality Mississippi. 128.91.246.27 (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * — 128.91.246.27 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep, obviously notable. --Alynna (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, although it's strange to see someone bring their own article to AfD... Irbisgreif (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is notable. If necessary, strip it down to a stub until enough print sources are found to resurrect it. That should stop all but the most far-fetched rationales for the drive-by tagging. Rivertorch (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support that. --Damiens .rf 11:33, 17 August 2009 (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.