Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington Initiative 957 (2007)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Washington Initiative 957 (2007)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This initiative was never a serious initiative - it was merely a stunt to attempt to make opponents of gay marriage look like fools. And, of course, it never made it on the ballot. While the notability guideline states that it's not temporary, in this case, the initiative was clearly never notable in the first place. There are usually several stunt initiatives like this with no chance of reaching the ballot every year in Washington. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Previous AfD for this: Articles for deletion/Initiative 957 Ego White Tray (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Initiative 957 was indeed serious: it was filed with the Washington Secretary of State, it was approved for gathering signatures, and petitions were circulated. The ballot measure made headlines around the world. And, as was noted in the previous effort to wipe this article from the Wikipedia, notability is not temporary. I-957 was notable when it was filed in 2007, and thus remains sufficiently notable today. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 13:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree that it was notable when it was filed. Lots of initiatives get filed in Washington and never go anywhere. Being filed does not confer notability, and I would say that in almost every case, actually appearing on the ballot is required for notability, at least in the state of Washington (not sure about other state's laws). Contrary to your opinion, I-957 wasn't notable in 2007 and is even less notable today. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, do you have any evidence that this received worldwide coverage? The footnoted refs are all primary sources, and the external links include news articles that are mostly in-state (one from MSNBC where Tri-Cities, WA appears on the top of the dead link, suggesting that MSNBC includes some local coverage). Do you have any sources from other countries on this? Ego White Tray (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Five and a half years after the fact, many of the news sites that previously had articles about I-957 have expired them. I can provide YouTube recordings of interviews and discussion on CNN, MSNBC and FOX, but YouTube is not considered a reliable source. What would satisfy you? TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 20:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I found a link (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/11/sm.02.html) of a transcript for the February 11, 2007 edition of CNN Sunday Morning where initiative frontman, Gregory Gadow, was interviewed about I-957. I'm sure that more such reliable sources can be found. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 20:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And an article on Bloomberg at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aJbisyCDNZ.o&refer=us. I will work on including more of the extant sources this weekend. Will that make everyone happy? TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 21:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and recall that there was a discussion to delete the article in August, 2007, a month after the initiative had been withdrawn by its sponsors. A discussion initiated by me, it should be noted. The consensus then was to keep the article, with some minor revisions. This article was sufficient notable then, and notability is not temporary. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 20:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sourcing sucks. In the event this doesn't close a keep, I propose LGBT rights in Washington as a potential merge target. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * * The sourcing could be better, yes. But that falls under the rubric of improving the article, not deleting it. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 19:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinion one way or the other about that, but it seems like this referendum was the political equivalent of WP:POINT and therefore might be better covered in the context of the broader gay and lesbian liberation movement than as a stand-alone page. Carrite (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, significant discussion in multiple secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This was national news and reliable sources are available to verify content and context. Insomesia (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2012 (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.