Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deirdre Macnab


 * 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.  Sandstein  17:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Deirdre Macnab

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTPROMO, and basically WP:NN. MSJapan (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete likely as I myself PRIDed and am still concerned if there's any actual independent notability and substance, none of this confirms it. SwisterTwister   talk  03:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:GNG met by significant coverage in cited reliable sources, specifically: and . WP:NPOL is less restrictive than WP:GNG and so is also met. Nomination reason and delete comments are not compelling. ~Kvng (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Says the deprodder, in the face of five statements to the contrary (including the PROD). MSJapan (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The subject is clearly not independently notable. I see coverage but most of them consist of her quoting stuff on behalf of League of Women Voters of Florida or local sources which tend to report on local news (and even then are actually reporting more about the organisation than her). Notability is not inherited simply because the subject occupies a position in a notable organisation - the subject needs to demonstrate that they are independently notable of the organisation. I do not see that here. We have had similar articles where the CEO of a company tends to receive coverage as they usually announce decisions and these article have been deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This was a tough one to work on, but she has significant coverage in Florida news sources (which I added to the article) and in addition, appears in national news such as The NY Times and the LA Times. The efforts of the League of Women Voters are part of her career and as the leader, there isn't a case of inheriting notability, her successes are part of her biography. BTW, I rewrote parts of the article so it's less of a mess. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The coverage in LA Times is restricted to 1 line. The NYTimes article doesn't even mention her. And yes, the leader of an organisation is obviously going to be in news if the organisation is notable. Notability has to be demonstrated independently of the organisation. This is the reason why we don't keep articles about CEOs on every notable company as it is essentially BIO1E. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A bit more than 1 line in LA Times after being named Central Floridian of the Year: . Hmlarson (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per Megalibrarygirl. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. we don't consider state branches of national organizations to be notable. So how can hte president of one such a branch derive notability from that?  DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * She doesn't derive notability from the state branch. Her article passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the separate origins of this state-level LWV gives it a separate history, written up in a scholarly journal. And at present, it has an independent agenda.  I have not delved into the degree of policy (issue-focus) independence of the state level LWVs in general, but this one at least is clearly independent both as a matter of its charter, and as a matter of fact in it's legal and policy initiatives.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I probable do not belong in here but am trying to defend Deirdre Macnab and her importance. The redistricting which is taking place all over the US now was germinated under her watch, starting in Florida with Amendents 5 and 6 about which she fought and won by enlisting the clout of the League. She will possibly be the driving force for bringing solar energy to Florida, the Sunshine State, with Amendment 4 folowed by Amendment 1 in November. She is chair of the League’s Natural Resources/Solar Action Group but could easliy have made a run in politics, choosing to advocate on the non-political side, instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriebourie (talk • contribs) 19:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, you don't. You've got a conflict of interest, and what somebody "possibly" could have done is wholly irrelevant to what they've actually done.  Every single article about Macnab says ..."president of the Florida League of Women Voters".  She's got no coverage independently of that, and that is the problem. MSJapan (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * comment So, after getting here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/League of Women Voters of Florida, I read the above comment about her not being in a particular NYTimes story and  searched her name in NYTimes.com, found this  "Deirdre Macnab, the president of the League of Women Voters of Florida, filed suit with other civic groups to overturn the law. "Basically.... (yada yada)...   said Ms. Macnab, whose organization has sued the state over past restrictions."  and a total of six presumably similar   showed 6 separate article between 2011 and 2014.   Search of WaPo showed 3 articles /#q=%22dierdre+Madnab%22++site%3Awashingtonpost.com. Wall Street Journal only one .  CNN 4   and tonight's winner is the  Miami Herald  with 32 hits!!!! /#q=%22dierdre+Madnab%22++site%3Amiamiherald.com%2F.   Seriously, the regional coverage of her is both deep and ongoing.  Bio is reliably sources to the Orlando Sentinel.   Remind me why we are discussing this?    Keep .E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards delete but!, it seems that a couple of your links are messed up. Please, if you wish to convince me, just drop a couple of links to solid articles from the Washington Post search, or from the NYT. (I think you may have misspelled the name too.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Here: NYTimes last 3 paragraphs here: ;  Here'a the Times link I posted above WaPo: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/08/01/judge-orders-new-congressional-map-in-florida-by-aug-15/, but all I did was put : "Dierdre Masnab"  site:NYTimes.com   in my search box.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * She seems to be discussed in Saving Florida: Women's Fight for the Environment in the Twentieth Century, Leslie Kemp Poole, University Press of Florida, 2015. But I can't access the text. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can't see that book either. I looked at the articles--sorry, but it's all still too thin for me. And now I've looked at all the hits in the NYT and the Washington Post; she's mentioned in a bunch of them, but always in her capacity as President of the League; she's not being discussed herself, as a topic. Sorry, I can't vote keep on this basis. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 *  Redirect  to League of Women Voters of Florida where a section on Presidents can be created with names, sources, perhaps brief bios. Reason is, I had taken sources 1 and 4 for 2 profile articles in the  Orlando Sentinel, but there is really only the sole profile article.  If someone sees a 2nd story in a major daily that contains detailed info/analysis about her, flag me and I will reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's probably the best, but you might as well call for merge to save the content. If she hits the big time we can restore/recreate more easily. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Besides the Orlando Sentinel, I cited coverage in the Orlando Business Journal in my keep comments above. I guess it's not a "major daily" but I assume it is a WP:RS. ~Kvng (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, careless of me, good point, this is a valid RS 2nd profile in a valid media source, thank you User:Kvng. Source can be read for free by anyone willing to walk through the registration process (or, click on register button, then click the "back" button, and you will see the article for 3 seconds without having to give them your email address.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * note that at least one other former President of the Florida League does have an article, May Mann Jennings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Because she was the First Lady of the State - she didn't get the WP:N for being president of the group. This is why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument.  However, going by that route, if only one person in a century got an article for being associated with the group, it somewhat lessens your argument, doesn't it? MSJapan (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you know that only one former President has an article?  I certainly know no such thing.  The academic journal article I read asserted in its first decade the Florida LWV sought and got the most predominant women in the state as President, they named the woman who was instrumental to founding the League.  My assumption would be that some of the others have or should have articles, but I have not checked that out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Then don't present "assumption" as either "facts" or "supporting evidence" when making notability arguments. You presented the statement that one other former president has an article, thus insinuating that the position is notable - that's why you said it without qualification. However, when pressed, you have no basis for making the statement. I think you've figured out that BLUDGEONING people with minutiae makes it look like there's substance to your statements, when in fact, you are presenting your assumptions as fact. MSJapan (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Article could use clean up and additional referencing per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep With apologies to all, I am changing my opinion, again. Reason is that yesterday I dove into the sourcing and notability issues at Articles for deletion/League of Women Voters of Florida, reading not only some of the academic history on that organization, but also serious journalism covering the League under Macnab's Presidency.  It looks to me as though under her leadership the League reemerged as a force to reckon with in Florida politics on an impressively wide range of issues, from race-related right-to-vote issues to environmentalism.  As part of this revival of the LWV in Florida, during her presidency the League was the lead plaintiff several important, policy-related lawsuits.  imho, the LWV Florida needs an historian to write up it's recent activism (suggestion to present leadership: get thee to a thesis-topic-seeking seeking feminist political historian).  I do not aspire to be that historian even on Wikipedia (although a good article on Masnab could be sourced to a thorough read of regional newspapers.  keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.