Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empower 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Empower Mississippi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not only worse that this was an apparent paid advertisement by a paid user, but all of the sources are simply local and trivial, coming from local attention, and the 2 newly added sources, WashingtonTimes and AssociatedPress are in fact the same one, the same local news article, so if that's honestly the best we can add, it surely emphasizes this is simply a locally active group. I myself could've added any other local news stories as shown by GoogleNews, but none of them establish actual substance and there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else, regardless, especially now that WP:NOT applies in that we're not a PR webhost, damned be any attempts at it. SwisterTwister talk 18:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per a review of available sources. The topic also passes WP:AUD, having received coverage in national news sources, such as Associated Press and USA Today. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment and analysis - As my nomination and searches show, all of this is still local news stories including the USAToday which explicitly states "From local Clarion Ledger, through Associated Press", hence not an actual major source apart from it being republished local news. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The byline of the USA Today article states the headline of the article and "Geoff Pender , The Clarion-Ledger". It does not state "From local Clarion Ledger, through Associated Press" anywhere on the page, nor does it have any mention of the Associated Press (AP). USA Today felt that the article deserved national coverage, and published it. Also, this article was originally published by the AP. The coverage received still meets WP:AUD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - USAToday published it because Gannett owns both USAToday and the ClarionLedger (a known fact), hence why it was bundled together; even then, USAToday in fact accepts tips for publishing so anyone could've suggested it for publishing, hence not a contributing factor for notability. Next, AssociatedPress itself, as the name shows, is a group of news and their journalists that will compile news together, hence not always a separate source. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article from Associated Press above was written by AP staff writer Jeff Amy. This article is not written by a compilation of authors; only one author wrote it. It is a valid article that serves to demonstrate notability. Furthermore, the sources I provided above are examples; more are available and easily found. The topic continues to meet WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:AUD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG from sources already showing in the footnotes. This group is the subject of multiple pieces of substantial, independently published sources of presumed reliability. These don't have to be the New York Times or Time magazine, these can be local. Carrite (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.