Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/League of Women Voters of Florida


 * 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 keep.  MBisanz  talk 00:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

League of Women Voters of Florida

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN local chapter of the national organization League of Women Voters. The majority of the sourcing in this article is not independent. The materials are either from the League itself or are primary sources. WP:NOTNEWS applies to much of their activity coverage. Article creator likely has a conflict of interest. MSJapan (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete: Agree with nominator. Any salvageable material can be merged into the main League of Women Voters article, but there's not enough independent sourcing to justify a standalone article. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This AFD is an example of WP's ongoing WP:RECENTISM problem.  The League of Women Voters was a major mid-20th century civic organization, a player in Florida as in most (every) state.  It is far, far less important today (an ironic outcome of the success of the women's movement, but I digress).  This article needs to be sourced and improved; doing so would make an excellent project for a Florida history or women's studies class.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Source This (Carver, Joan S. "First League of Women Voters in Florida: Its Troubled History." The Florida Historical Quarterly 63, no. 4 (1985): 383-405. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30152979.) description puts the origins of the Florida LWV (Palm Beach, 1920)  into a fascinating context to do with southern attitudes towards women's suffrage and "Yankee" political organizations muscling their way into Dixie.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh Google has a better memory than I do. Turns out the Florida LWV was a major player more recently than I woulda thunk.  The league was a major player in a notable voting rights lawsuit in 2008.  See, .  that's Kurt S. Browning. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And that's already in the article, which you apparently didn't read before voting here. MSJapan (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. The lawsuit is mentioned, but no these sources.  there is no doubt that the article needs improvement.  Nor is there doubt that the topic is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, scanned the article, missed that. It is, however, my usual practice at AFD to pay less attention to what is already on the page, than to the intrinsic significance of the topic. Given that you have looked closely, would you reconsider this AFD?  The LWV was such a major player in the 20th century, and, in Florida, it looks as though it continues to be a major statewide power in Florida see this: ] in Florida Today, a major daily.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, because it's still a local chapter of a national organization per WP:CLUB, which we only know about this because of an editor with a COI - the article was written by someone involved with it, and the majority of the sources are affiliated people and affiliated websites. In short, the people claiming they're a major player are the people involved with the organization.  There's almost nothing independent of the organization for sources, or the sources don't really support the claim.  At least 3/4 the sources are no good, and that's on a quick perusal.


 * Moreover, local coverage is local coverage, period. There are plenty of groups that post their meetings in the paper, and have done so over a long period of time, but that doesn't make them notable.  They're still local, just like this group.  To add a corollary to your "recentism" problem, just because it's online via the Internet doesn't make the coverage any less local than it would have been in the paper.  If you want to claim longevity, then coverage in a non-local daily once in 75 years is not going to be enough.  A flash in the pan is still a flash in the pan.  If the plaintiff in the lawsuit was a person, they'd be BIO1E for that lawsuit if that was their only claim to fame.  I personally fail to see any wide-ranging effects - districting has always been an issue in state politics, and the districts are redrawn fairly regularly everywhere.  Importance is being placed here because of lack of knowledge of the overall situation in the country.  What it comes down to is that the only people saying they're a "major player" are people from the organization itself. MSJapan (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Local coverage does not make a topic non-notable. No where in the guidelines or policy does it state that. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a significant topic with a paltry article. The question at issue is the notability of the topic, not the sourcing in the article as it stands.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Sources
 * Electoral Dysfunction: A Survival Manual for American Voters, Victoria Bassetti, The New Press, includes a detailed discussion (some pages were blanked out in my search; page #s did not appear) to the Florida LWV's voter registration drive and the way it was terminated by the threat of fiscally ruinous politically-motivated law suits in 2011.
 * The Politics of Disenfranchisement: Why is it So Hard to Vote in America?, Richard K. Scher, Publisher, Routledge, 2015 includes a similarly long section, in chapter "Keep You From Voting? Yes We Can!  in page range 90s.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ''Women of the American South: A Multicultural Reader, Christie Farnham, NYU Press, 1997, p. 214 discusses the complexities of the National American Woman Suffrage Association in 1923 changing itself into the League of Women Voters of Florida is some cities, but in other Florida cities using other names because of the complexities of race and questions about black women voting and joining (complicated stuff).


 * These sources are only a sample of what is out there. The League has been a major force in Florida politics for almost a century, the plaintiff in a list of major legal cases on a range of civic issues, and Florida, of course, is larger than most sovereign countries.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm glad to see the use of non-neutral language now that you're the "champion" of this organization - it helps to show where there's no strength of material to support your newfound cause of choice. I'm sure they appreciate it, though.  Two sources from 2011 does not make an organization "a major force" for almost a century.  Here's the question:  in your clearly encyclopedic knowledge of what the LWV does, does the Florida chapter do anything different or out of the ordinary as compared to some other LWV in some other state?  If not, they're not notable for simply carrying out their mission statement on a local level, and the argument that a state is larger than a country is also irrelevant.  The size of a state doesn't make a difference to notability of anything contained within it.  By the way, that's your fatal error here.  You're making the assumption that they're acting way out of line with respect to the rest of the organization by what they're doing, and yet you don't know a thing about it other than the sources you have found.  In short, confirmation bias - "they're notable because I think they are, and here's my cherry-picked sources to prove it."  You're generally pretty good at snowing people into believing that two pages or (two words) in a book is significant by citing the book without the scope of the content, and then paraphrasing it how you think it went, but that's not how this works. MSJapan (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note That I clarified the distinctive origins of the Florida LWV on the page, sourcing it to an academic article from which a detailed history of the League in the 1920s can be sourced, including its rupture with the national LWV over feminism. It is clear that 1.) the FSLWV of the 1920s played a significant part in women's issues (women's right to serve on juries; women's right to control property independently of their husbands) in Florida.  2.) that the LWV as reorganized in Florida in 1939 was a more general,non-feminist organization, 3.) that it again played a significant role in recent decades in Florida politics, on civil rights/voting rights issues and as plaintiff in a number of important legal cases on the state level.  4.) that a good article can and should be written on this organization - although it has not been written yet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources demonstrating the contemporary & independent notability of the LWV - Florida:
 * League of Women Voters joins effort to expand solar energy, Miami Herald
 * Reed: 'Liberal' League of Women Voters has owned GOP Florida Today
 * League of Women Voters of Florida calls for special session, tighter gun laws, Naples Daily News
 * League of Women Voters takes on gun control, Orlando Sentinel E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - E.M. Gregory has done a great job rescuing this article; the article and the refs now added to it show historic significance. Neutralitytalk 22:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly meets WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Nice work . Hmlarson (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep 's work on this had convinced me. As for the insinuation from that E.M.Gregory has "snowed" the other keepers (and me too) into !voting keep, first of all, I think that's uncalled for as E.M. Gregory has laid out a thoughtful case and found information on a topic that's difficult to research. Even a few pages in a book can be significant when you are researching these topics. The Journal article is an excellent find as well. In addition, I'll add a few more references to support the Notability outside of the local sphere (some are via database): No Constitutional Right to Be Ladies, a book which discusses a 1949 case where the FLVW was heavily involved, Review of Florida Supreme Court case with FLVW written up in Urban Lawyer, Palm Beach Post, NY Times coverage... I'll add any references brought up here into the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The general rule is that we do not keep articles on the state branches of national organization--and indeed we have no article on any of their other branches. The national organization is very highly notable, but there is insufficient reason to break the pattern for this particular state one. According to WP:GNG, the mere fact of meeting GNG does not imply we must necessarily have an article where there is a larger inclusive article. That rule was meant for cases like this. Those using the technical ability to meet the GNG with relatively insubstantial sources need to be aware that the rule does not mean what they seem to thing, that meeting it ids the only consideration that there should be an article.  DGG ( talk ) 07:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can flip that logic: just because we don't have an article on other LWV local organizations, doesn't mean we shouldn't have one here, or for other local chapters if they have contributed significantly to US politics (as the Florida chapter did). There are, in fact, significant sources used in the article and discussed above. DGG's insinuation that the sources brought up here and in the article are "relatively insubstantial" seem to show that he did not really evaluate the sources at all. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -- The subject appears notable independently of the parent organisation, per sourced brought forth by . K.e.coffman (talk) 19:48, 10 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.