Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milwaukee Independent

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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)[reply]

Milwaukee Independent

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Milwaukee Independent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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:

Source Assessment Table
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Unclear. Some google maps entries are edited by the business owner, while others are automatically generated. Unclear. Some google maps entries are edited by the business owner, while others are automatically generated. In the former case it's WP:ABOUTSELF, but in the latter case it's unreliable. No This google maps page provides trivial coverage of the business No This is essentially a database listing
No The only prose content on the page is directly taken from the Milwaukee Independent's Facebook page. No Muckrack is generally fine for listing articles published by a company, but it is algorithmically generated without editorial oversight. No Per WP:CORPDEPTH, simple listings or compilations are not significant coverage. No This is an extremely primary source list of articles.
No This is the website of the article subject – WP:ABOUTSELF Moot as clearly non-independent. Moot as clearly non-independent.
No This is the website of the article subject – WP:ABOUTSELF Moot as clearly non-independent. Moot as clearly non-independent.
No This is the website of the article subject – WP:ABOUTSELF Moot as clearly non-independent. Moot as clearly non-independent.
No This is the website of the article subject – WP:ABOUTSELF Moot as clearly non-independent. Moot as clearly non-independent.
Yes Why not? Yes Why not? No The Milwaukee Independent is mentioned in a single sentence as having reported a fact. No There is no secondary coverage of The Milwaukee Independent.
No This is the website of the article subject – WP:ABOUTSELF Moot as clearly non-independent. Moot as clearly non-independent.
Yes Intelligencer is an independent WP:NEWSORG Yes WP:GREL on WP:RSP No The Milwaukee Indepdent is not so much as mentioned in the article. No There is no secondary coverage of The Milwaukee Independent in the source.
Yes The Raw Story appears to be independent of The Milwaukee Independent No WP:GUNREL on WP:RSP No The Milwaukee Independent is not so much as mentioned in the article. No There is no secondary coverage of The Milwaukee Independent in the source.
Yes Jacobin appears to be independent of The Milwaukee Independent Yes WP:GREL on WP:RSP No The Milwaukee Independent is not mentioned in the article. No There is no secondary coverage of The Milwaukee Independent in the source.
Yes The New York Times is independent of The Milwaukee Independent – This is written in the opinion pages of The New York Times, which are opinion pieces rather than news pieces. No The Milwaukee Independent is not mentioned whatsoever in the source. No There is no secondary coverage of The Milwaukee Independent in the source.
Yes PBS is an indepedent WP:NEWSORG Yes PBS Newshour is an established WP:NEWSORG No The Milwaukee Independent is not mentioned whatseover in the source. No There is no secondary coverage of The Milwaukee Independent in the source.
– The contest requires entries to pay a fee to be considered for an award. – WP:ABOUTSELF No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, a listing of award recipients is a form of trivial coverage. No This is a primary source listing of award recipients.
– The contest requires entries to pay a fee to be considered for an award. – WP:ABOUTSELF No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, a listing of award recipients is a form of trivial coverage. No This is a primary source listing of award recipients.
– The contest requires entries to pay a fee to be considered for an award. – WP:ABOUTSELF No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, a listing of award recipients is a form of trivial coverage. No This is a primary source listing of award recipients.
– The contest requires entries to pay a fee to be considered for an award. – WP:ABOUTSELF No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, a listing of award recipients is a form of trivial coverage. No This is a primary source listing of award recipients.
– The contest requires entries to pay a fee to be considered for an award. – WP:ABOUTSELF No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, a listing of award recipients is a form of trivial coverage. No This is a primary source listing of award recipients.

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
@IrpinIndependent: 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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:56, 17 October 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Milwaukee_Independent&oldid=1116627055"