Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Municipal Code Corporation


 * 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 per sources presented during the discussion. RL0919 (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Municipal Code Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It exists, it has had a lot of work, but how does it meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG? Boleyn (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Despite finding an interesting fact among the existing sources (of which only one is secondary), I couldn’t find any other non-PR releases to ascertain notability. ZsinjTalk 18:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment That explains why a lot of Florida jurisdictions use Municode... – The Grid  ( talk )  02:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep with sources I have been able to find and I removed all self refs/buzzwords on the article. It really is hard to search for the company about Municode because well...it is used by a lot of local governments so Google defaults to thinking you're searching for code of ordinances. I was more successful with searching for "George Langford" Municode as I got the history of the company. I'm going to continue looking for sources since I see a possibility here. – The Grid  ( talk )  14:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. –  The Grid  ( talk )  19:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –  The Grid  ( talk )  23:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. For example, the reference from 850 Business magazine relies entirely on an interview with the president of the topic company and does not contains and information/data that is "clearly attributable to a source *unaffiliated* to the subject", fails WP:ORGIND as it does not have any "Independent Content". The Tallahassee Magazine reference is a single sentence and the article does not contain any in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, the Orlando Sentinel reference also relies entirely on information provided by Langford and the company and has no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 19:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The book notes on page 52: "Codes are published by commercial publishers such as the Municipal Code Corporation, American Legal Publishing, or perhaps a publisher local to the particular municaplity or county. Municipal Code Corporation (MCC) is the nation's leading publisher of local government codes of ordinances. The company has published codes for more than 2,500 cities and counties in 48 states. Most of those cities and counties are still customers. MCC employs 11 attorneys who have on average over 12 years' experience in the specialized field of codification. For example, when the publisher contracts with a city, it sends consultants to the city to review legal issues and organize and compile the codes. A printed edition is created, with a loose-leaf supplement service. Most code compilations should contain features such as a listing of all sections at the front of each chapter and catchlines preceding each section that describe the subject of the section. Also included should be history notes at the end of each section giving the ordinance number from which the section is drived; cross-references, which tie related sections together; and state law references, which cite the applicable state statute. The organizational arrangement usually includes articles and divisions and allows for an alphabetical sequence of chapters by subject matter." The book notes on page 53: "MCC's Web site is very nicely designed. The links on the site are mostly of local government codes of ordinances from around the United States. The state of Florida is heavily represented at this site." The book notes on page 178: "MCC provides codification, indexing, and publishing services. Its Web site offers a list of freely available codes and minutes. ... Also, due to the broad scope of the site, the links are not limited to planning and zoning, and a user may be confronted with much extraneous material."  The book notes: "Florida researchers will want to have this page bookmarked. The Municipal Code Corporation publishes a slew of Florida municipal codes. They also delve into other states, like Georgia, but their Florida holdings are definitely impressive. An interesting search capability is offered by MCC that allows users to combine city codes into a multiple search. Perhaps a research assignment requires finding similar code sections to one under review in a user's home city. MCC allows the researcher to combine 10 separate codes under the umbrella of one search. An impressive feat."</li> <li> The book notes: "The MCC, a nearly fifty-year-old business, posts a massive number of online codes from forty states. With more than 200 entries, Florida is the most heavily represented; Texas and North Carolina come in a distant second and third, respectively. It's possible to run a search query across some of the codes. Take the link to Multiple Document Query Request for the search engine and a scroll-down menu of codes available for this feature."</li> <li> The article discusses the history of Municode. There is enough independent material to establish notability.</li> <li> The article notes: "Currently, the company does work for more than 4,250 local governments, reaching more than 200 million people. It hosts one of the largest collection of codified law and original ordinances in the country, featuring more than 3,900 local government codes and 190,000 individual ordinances."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Municipal Code Corporation to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC) </li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: BOLDly relisting a third time for further consideration of Cunard's sources, which were presented less than twenty-four hours ago.
 * Keep, as there are enough sources for notability, thanks to Cunard's book sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG per Cunard. Suriname0 (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard's excellent source analysis. Mlb96 (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping to review Cunard's sources.  czar  21:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.