Talk:Alabama Together

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alabama This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles Organizations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 August 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

@SunCrow: Do you think this article meets WP:GNG? I see it has gone to AFD once before and passed. But looking through it, I really don't see any substantial coverage in secondary sources. Would be interested in your thoughts. Marquardtika (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marquardtika, thanks for asking. I hear your concern; it seems iffy to me, too, but I don't see the article as being egregiously non-notable enough for me to spend time pushing for removal. Other problems include the unreliable sourcing and the non-encyclopedic tone (when I first looked at it, the article read more like an organization website than it did like an encyclopedia article). I have fixed the tone problem, but the sourcing is still an issue. SunCrow (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the article! Looking a lot better. Marquardtika (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]