Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoVoteMiami (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

GoVoteMiami
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

I believe that the reasons I gave in the earlier AfD back in June. that was closed with no consensus, are still valid; "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." The only significant change since then has been discussion of Florida's allowing felons to vote, but no sources have been provided that give significant coverage to this organization's work. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I will again explain the sources:
 * 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 the reference to the interview was removed) 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
 * simply explains felon voting in Florida 331dot (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Each recommendation received from wiki editors/moderators are understood and adjustments are continually made to meet guidelines. The Govotemiami page exceeds the expectations and requirements when compared to many other wiki pages previously mentioned which are not under attack like this govotemiami wiki page. Aggressively targeting govotemimai wiki page for deletion displays a bias as other wiki pages who are in clear violation of wiki terms/guidelines are allowed, approved, and receiving a pass on their self-promotion, providing false information, and no relevant cites. While researching wikipedia to better understand why this article is selected for deletion, I came across several articles on the internet about wikipedia being systemic bias along gender, racial, political and national related topics / articles and this seems to be the situation with this article as previously pointed out other political and causes wikipedia is selectively permitting to violate guidelines while targeting govotemiami. 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.

The sources given include coverage from independent reliable sources; Miami Hearld, Independent Article Foundation Providing recognition and detail about govotemiami. islandernews.com/ 2 independent articles https://www.keynews.org/ independent city and community news article Independent Article from florida news agency •	Information provided is also referenced under references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonscott239 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)    Jonscott239 (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)jonscott239
 * Wikipedia has over 6 million articles and only several thousand regular contributors. It is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. That does not mean other inappropriate articles should be permitted. You are welcome to point out other inappropriate articles so those can be addressed, we can only address what we know about, and we could use help.
 * Articles must do more than state facts. They must summarize what independent reliable sources with in depth, significant coverage have chosen to state. None of the offered sources have such coverage. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has over 6 million articles and only several thousand regular contributors and in the whole mess of inappropriate and non-compliant wikipedia articles within the 6 million, this article is aggressively being targeted for deletion even though I am working hard to comply, follow guidelines, and make adjustments based on editor/mod feedback and comments. To the best of my knowledge and belief, this non-profit is being unfairly targeted including attempts to quickly submit for deletion as I continue to work on improving and adjusting to your requests. The wikipedia requirements which are detailed and clear, this article follows. Some verbiage in the guidelines which happens to be (subjective) is being used as an excuse to silence and delete this article. With the 6 million articles and limited man power, the time being spent on not approving and deleting this article is taking time away from protecting the community from the many fake, misleading, and promotional wiki pages in clear violation. No need to be angry or fight. I'm simply trying to follow rules, guidelines and feedback and in return have been under attack with each edit and adjustment made to this article. Jonscott239 (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)jonscott239
 * Saying that you are working to comply concedes my point that the article is not compliant. If that's the case, then this should be in draft space and submitted through Articles for Creation when ready; there you can take all the time you need to work on it before submitting without fear of criticism until it is reviewed. That would completely satisfy me if you agreed. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this hostility is coming from. What I said does not concede your point. Reading the guidelines I am compliant. If I need to elaborate further to not have my words incorrectly interpreted for the purpose denying this articles publication, What I am sayings is that - I am respectfully "trying to comply" with "you" and "editor" suggestions to satisfy and comply with your specific concerns and suggestions. I have no desire to fight and do not see the need for only you to specifically be targeting this article and leaving comments the 2nd something is changed or edited. Take a breath. We are all a community who cares..... Once again, with 6mil articles you mentioned, you are spending a lot of time and hours targeting this article in an aggressive way. Wikipedia states that being administrator does not give you any Sergeant-like authority and is not an entitlement. Further wikipedia states Admins must follow all of Wikipedia policies (such as the three-revert rule) and uphold consensus and a neutral point of view. You also do not have to always have the last word and consistently trying to prove points and there is no reason have an emotional approach and to take disagreements personal. Jonscott239 (talk)jonscott239 — Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you are getting hostility from; I'm not hostile or upset or anything bad. I've never claimed to want the last word nor am I taking anything personally. I'm just here to have a civil discussion about this subject. No more, no less. I am not sure why you bring up 3RR, I haven't crossed that line. I'm not trying to prove a point, but this discussion should rely on logical arguments based in Wikipedia guidelines, which I have tried to do. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am aware I have no more authority than you. I haven't sought to assert authority. Would you like to respond to my proposal above? 331dot (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: would benefit from some more uninvolved input given at least one user's strenuous objections to deletion and prior no consensus close.
 * Delete: appears to be a non-notable organisation. The article also appears to have a promotional tone, and while I know that's not a reason to delete (I'm not suggesting it should be deleted for that), I just want to point out that there are other problems with the article that would need to be dealt with if it isn't deleted.  Seagull123  Φ  22:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aasim (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly fails WP:NORG, specifically WP:ORGDEPTH. Further, author of the article that is BLUDGEONING this discussion is clearly a WP:SPA whose level of WP:ADVOCACY is approaching WP:NOTHERE. He has made no edits outside the direct topic of the article at hand, either with his current username or his past username . 174.254.192.213 (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. If you suspect socking, I'd suggest you open a sock investigation. Aasim (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The user is not suggesting socking, the creator of the draft legitimately changed their username. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources doesn't establish WP:NORG. Setreis (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2021 (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.