Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoVoteMiami

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 no consensus (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GoVoteMiami[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. This just tells about the organization and what it does much like a brochure put out by the organization would. The sources given are not significant coverage in independent reliable sources; one is an interview with the leader of the organization, two others simply cite factual information, and the Library source is just a link to its website. This has gone back and forth between draft and main space with the creator moving it to mainspace twice. The creator(who validly changed their username) states that they are a supporter of the organization though not associated with it and wants to spread the word about what they do. Helping people vote is a worthy cause, but Wikipedia is not for telling the world about worthy causes. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC) 331dot (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The GoVoteMiami article presents a 1) neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge 2) in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style". 3) is not argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing. Independent sources have been added and primary sources or suggested primary sources including items which may have appeared promotional have been removed. Current Sources and cites include 1) Independent of the subject 2) Reliable 3) Verifiable according to the Wikipedia, General notability guidelines. Cites and sources are Independent sources based on Wikipedia guidelines. An extreme effort has been made to follow the wikipedia guidelines for publishing the article. Any sources which wiki editors believed to be a primary source or promotional has been removed. This is not a paid or promotional article. It focus on facts and verifiable information. This article meets the same guidelines and standards as other non-profits which are and have been active articles on Wikipedia for years. This article should not be deleted because of a Wikipedia volunteers bias regarding non-profits, elections and opinion of voting in America or due to party affiliation in Florida. This article is a about a bipartisan, Non-Profit, written without author opinion solely based on facts. As author, I hope wikipedia volunteers are able to also have an unbiased approach. jonscott239Jonscott239 (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonscott239 I am not biased against non-profits or elections, nor Floridian party affiliations. Non-profits are treated no differently than for-profits on Wikipedia. I've tried to explain what the issues are with the sources, but you seem to have disregarded my explanations or misunderstand me. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made adjustments with each recommendation . I followed advice and recommendations. Other articles of nonprofits relating to voting are approved, active and meet the same standards and requirements as the other non-profits which shows a bias or ulterior motive to be selective with this article and not other organizations. jonscott239Jonscott239 (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonscott239 This is a volunteer project with 6 million plus articles, it's possible to get inappropriate articles past us. We can only address what we know about. If you'd care to share these other articles, we can evaluate them as well. See other stuff exists. There is no "ulterior motive". 331dot (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles include.... Nonprofit Vote , Project Vote , Vote Smart , Independent voter project , and a 100 more. I fixed the issues pointed out and removed the article which was an interview however the other Islander article is independent along with the miami herald article and other sources/references are independent. The changes were made based on recommendations and detail of the article is listed on my previous response written on 16:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC). Reasons for submitting article for deletion include 1. "just tells about the organization and what it does" 2. "simply cite factual information" 3. included its mission, goals. If wikipedia articles are not suppose to list facts, about the organizations including its mission and goals, or to provide information about worthy causes, then what should they tell? -The article has been adjusted according to feedback from multiple wikipedia volunteers/editors. It meets the same standards of other articles and according to wiki guidelines. jonscott239Jonscott239 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Nonprofit Vote article has some of the same problems as this one. The other three are a bit better but nothing like this article. The purposes you describe are not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen to say about a subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Not every organization merits an article, even within the same field. It all depends on what sources say about them, with significant coverage. In this case, your sources, in order:

cites the mere fact that this organization is registered with the State of Florida
cites a Q&A from the DOJ regarding the National Voter Registration Act
cites (once you removed reference to the interview) that the Mayor of Miami supports the goals of the organization
seems to link to a registration form
cites the existence of the Miami Public Library system

None of these are significant coverage of this organization itself in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to do so- which is what the article should primarily consist of. "Missions" are wholly unencyclopedic as it is impossible to independently verify what an organization's "mission" is, as it can change at any time. I hope you find the right forum to tell the world or at least Miami-Dade about this group, which performs a worthy service. However, you can't use Wikipedia to tell the world about it. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that the subject does not meet WP:NCORP. The sources currently listed in the article are not adequate (they're primary sources or not significant or not independent) with the possible exception of this one (however, I echo 331dot's assessment of that source in the discussion above); I did a quick search for other sources that might be possible to use and was unable to locate any. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2020 (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.