Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milwaukee Independent


 * 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 delete. ✗ plicit  14:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Milwaukee Independent

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NCORP, as I am unable to find significant coverage of this company by multiple independent reliable secondary sources. None of sources in the article actually contribute towards corporate notability, as shown in the following source assessment table:

Additionally, I am unable to find sources that contribute to notability through an online search. I found a couple of news articles that give trivial mentions of the company, such as PBS Wisconsin and Mashable, but I'm not able to find significant coverage of this news company by multiple independent reliable sources. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Wisconsin. —  Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 05:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per RedTailedHawk's excellent (as always) source analysis and the lack of coverage elsewhere. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 06:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per Red-tailed hawk. I was surprised I couldn't find significant coverage anywhere, given the reasonably high readership, but alas we don't have a notability pass on that alone. Ovinus (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  05:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: I will present a defense for not deleting this page.
 * WP:NCORP says "... When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society ... education. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations..."
 * Milwaukee Independent has earned 48 journalism awards since 2016. It has published over 8,000 articles in that time. Hundreds of article have been back-linked to their journalism, but are listed as embedded links - not always specifically cited as a source by name.
 * The low hanging fruit from a google search only shows if other news organizations have recently reported on or quoted Milwaukee Independent's work. There have been numerous citations over the years that take more effort to find - like published paper books or academic journals for columnist Reggie Jackson's work. Milwaukee Independent should not be disqualified for this reason alone.
 * For example, other Milwaukee TV stations wanted to interview the journalism team who went to report on the war in Ukraine. But they refused media appearances, saying... "how can we publish 27 articles and 1400 images about our experience covering the war and condense that to a 30 second soundbite for TV?" Because local TV stations did not piggyback on their work, does that make their journalism less impactful or of worth? They remain the only news organization to report on the war from Ukraine - Irpin is Milwaukee's sister city.
 * It is understandable that significant coverage is important for verification. But I think most attention is bad news, when an organization - particularly media - becomes embroiled in a controversy. Why should that precedent supersede when an organization is overlooked for trying to fulfill the purpose of journalism by educating the public - without demanding the spotlight? IrpinIndependent (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. Your argument that the Milwaukee Independent employed someone you say is a notable columnist does not in any way lend credibility towards the claim that the corporation is notable.
 * Additionally, the existence of mere backlinks to their articles is in no way WP:ORGDEPTH-level coverage. And, while you may feel that they are valuable or important in some way, WP:ORGSIG notes that "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it. Along those lines, would you be willing to provide a list of three sources you think show that this organization has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable secondary sources? —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Also buying RTH's excellent analysis, also believe Milwaukee Independent fails WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2022 (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.