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. The article would benefit from some of the references cited in the AfD. Tyrenius 02:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MassEquality[edit]

Too local in scope for inclusion per WP:ORG New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 00:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Becksguy 19:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A local scope doesn't mean something is necessarily non-notable. (So long as notability can be established by outside sources). I've added one reference to the article, and I think more can be found (given that MassEquality played a strong role in the evolution of gay rights in MA. In fact, they won a national award for that). --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep See my comments at the AFD page at Equality Maryland. I'm not sure MassEquality is even "local" in the sense meant by the criterion, but even if it is, it surely is notable -- although not represented here, we could find many references to it in national media. I think it would be better to improve the article with references than to delete it. kdogg36 01:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:ORG, Since it's mentioned by InNewsweekly, a very large LGBT magazine.--Alasdair 01:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and agreed that the organization appears to have a significant presence. - Nascentatheist 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close Delete The Google hits are mostly blogs and press releases. For all the media coverage of gay marriage in Massachusetts, they have a remarkably low presense in the media. One Bay Windows article doesn't equal notability. MarkBul 03:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Bay Windows comment is a bit misleading, as there are much more prominent sources: there are several articles in the New York Times that mention the organization by name kdogg36 03:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite those articles non are actually about it just, just passing mentions and comments from people who are in the org. still seems to fail notibility of WP:ORG-Dacium 03:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - WP:POINT much? See Equality Maryland afd, MassEquality afd, Equality Mississippi afd and Kansas Equality Coalition afd -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This outfit is the point crew behind the same-sex marriage faction in Massachusetts. A complete list on Google News returns nearly five hundred hits, from the AP newswire, FOX News, MarketWatch, the Boston Globe, Bloomberg, the Philadelphia Inquirer, PBS ... "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." Reliable sources are available in carload lots. RGTraynor 18:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reason given for nomination is untrue -- Roleplayer 20:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tagishsimon, SatyrTN and kdogg36. • Lawrence Cohen 13:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I do not think the reference support in a non-trivial way the notability of the organization. ""We believe he's projecting himself to a national Republican audience," said Marty Rouse, campaign director for MassEquality, a pro-gay marriage group." as two lines in a full page article that is devoted to the general issue, quoting several other people and organizations at considerably greater length. The article furthermore does not talk significantly about the organization, but about equal marriage rights politics in Mass., mentioned that the organization is one of those involved. Straight PR; they are notable for getting themselves quoted as one among others. I suppose the support for the article proves they're good at their PR. I fervently hope their cause succeeds, but not everyone who supports a notable cause is notable. DGG (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2007 (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.