Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FairVote

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. It appears that the issues can be resolved via editing. Star Mississippi 16:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FairVote

[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)

Although this article has existed for a long time, I believe it should be deleted for for reasons of notability and being promotional in nature.

The article recently came under scrutiny due to a COI discussion about the User:RRichie (who is probably Rob Richie of FairVote).

There are no sources on the page that can be used to establish notability. Most of them probably shouldn't be used on that page at all.
The page appears to have been created and maintained mostly by FairVote employees. This raises concerns about WP:PROMO
The article is in a bad state right now. There have been attempts to improve it, but I believe those will be unreasonably difficult, due to the continued involvement of FairVote employees. (See the "Vandalism" section of the article's talk page) Brilliand (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose - the article has been chaotic due to what are alleged by supporters of the organization to be ideologically-based attacks, and by involvement by supporters of the organization who didn't seem to grasp our rules about COI, etc. But that does not change the fact that this is the best-known U.S. organization advocating for IRV and related reforms. Problems with the article do not change the topic's notability. (Full disclosure: I've been a supporter of this organization for decades.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. It seems to have a decent level of coverage, and I would be curious to see a source analysis for the article indicating otherwise. BD2412 T 18:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion I started on the article's talk page. The current sourcing for the article does not include anything that can establish notability.
I suppose you're asking for something that I don't know how to do; my assumption is that if an article this old (and with this many sources) doesn't contain evidence of its own notability, then it probably isn't. --Brilliand (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Maryland, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There is substantial coverage of FairVote's local affiliates, who have gotten instant-runoff voting passed in Seattle (FairVote Washington), Alaska, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, and Maine. There's also its lobbying work through FairVote Action. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page does seem to be ~95% links to FairVote's own website, which is incredibly egregious. There seems to be a bit of coverage in a few newspapers+magazines. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources are simply name drops, in articles about other things. I can't find any further sources about this group. delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and improve the article. Looks like a notable organization and there plenty of sources. The contents of the article just need improvement for neutral and encyclopedic tone.Prof.PMarini (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While there is definitely some COI here, that is a fixable problem with some rewriting and adding additional sources meeting the GNG. A search came up with [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]] and [[5]]. I'd say this subject meets the WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Let'srun (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree with Oaktree that most of the sources are name drops, either just "FairVote" or "FairVote" with a brief description of what the organization does. However, there are a handful of articles and scholarly articles that do provide more context, including the Axios article. So, I see this as just passing WP:NORG. --Enos733 (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant information about internet searches that demonstrate notability:

- FairVote is in the top hits for democracy terms like "ranked choice voting", "instant runoff", "voter turnout"" statewide recounts" and so on

- CSPAN frequently has the organization and its co-founder on the program over the years. See https://www.c-span.org/search/basic/?query=fairvote https://www.c-span.org/search/basic/?query=%22rob+richie%22

- New York Times & Washington Post have multiple hits for FairVote and stories citing it resources, quoting its staff or publishing its staff (not all hits are the org, but most) https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=fairvote https://www.washingtonpost.com/search/?query=fairvote

- Charity Navigator, the nonprofit rating entity, gives it a 100%, 4-star rating: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/541635649

This is just the tip of the iceberg. 173.66.181.85 (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2024 (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.