Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowans for D.C. Statehood

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 merge to District of Columbia statehood movement. RL0919 (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iowans for D.C. Statehood[edit]

[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)

Does not meet WP:NORG, the only examples of independent coverage are articles published by DCist [1], [2]. This puts us some of the way towards meeting WP:ORGCRITE, but with only a single outlet providing coverage, we fall short of the guideline as a whole. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Washington, D.C.. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to District of Columbia statehood movement. There are some facts and sources in the Iowans for D.C. Statehood article that could be incorporated into the larger article, which also provides more context. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that, and carried out a similar merge for 51 for 51, but given the nature of Iowans for DC I'm not sure it's really due for mention at that target. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a sentence or two at District_of_Columbia_statehood_movement#Political_support_and_opposition? If it makes sense to just mention them there, I can do it now, and then I will change my vote here to !delete. Or is there something else about their nature I'm not understanding? (Intrigued!) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it could work in that section; my concern is that ideally we'd want high-level sources that describe the impact of support from outside DC to justify that this group (or others like it) are significant enough to warrant mention in an overview of the balance of support for DC statehood. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Changing !vote based on additional coverage found, including 2016 Washington Post article and 2020 Washingtonpost.com report from the Iowa caucuses, plus others added to the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Those two links go to the same place--I'm assuming that was an accident. WaPo is paywalled for me so I'll leave it to others to assess. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]
Ok, thanks for updating the links. I think that the 2016 example could just barely count towards ORGCRITE, whereas the 2020 one only mentions the subject in a quote from a participant. Even with the the first one though, we're scraping the definition of "significant". _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like the 2016 Washington City Paper article though obviously he interviews Strauss and Harrison. It picks up on some details that no one else does (crossover with Polk County Democrats), etc. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(About the 2020 Washington Post' article though – I like it because it is more than a mention; it discusses action taken by the Iowans for DC Statehood – reaching out to Team Delaney to get his campaign bus and using it for the stunt – it's really what changed my mind about the article because until I found it, I wasn't convinced they did much beyond 2016. To me it's important to know what an ORG does, not just what it "is".) Cielquiparle (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with the 2020 one is that there's no independent coverage of Iowans for D.C. Statehood as an organization--it's mentioned by an interviewee once, but otherwise it's about John Delaney's activities, not the group in question. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I re-read it and agree the 2020 WaPo article is not that great after all. The main thing it adds is that the organization kept going in 2020 (and probably contributed to the issue's national momentum that year, though no one actually says that). Still, it's more than nothing and I think there are plenty of other articles now (Washington City Paper, etc.) that count toward notability. (Ironically I only ended up searching as hard as I did because of your slight hesitation with adding them to the statehood movement page...!) There is also a syndicated Associated Press article focused on the organization that I didn't bother adding, as I think it mostly duplicates the basic facts reported elsewhere. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link the AP one? I think that Iowans for D.C. Statehood? You Betcha. - Washington City Paper is also a bit short on independent analysis, whose extent is While Iowa may seem like a choice out of left field, the shadow delegation will be working closely with Iowans For D.C. Statehood, a real, nonprofit organization based in Des Moines that has been actively advocating for the issue for the past year, since a resolution was passed by the Polk County Democrats to support statehood. It’s that resolution that the representatives hope to get on party platforms during the elections.. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Washington City Paper points out, which no one else does, is this one. Obviously it's an indirect quote, but it's a fact which the reporter obviously pushed for, as it seems highly unlikely that Harrison would offer that she was wearing two hats that could be seen as a conflict: While Harrison also acts as executive director for the Polk County Democrats, she insists that the efforts of Iowans for D.C. Statehood are separate and non-partisan. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In looking at the Associated Press article again...it is more about Strauss than Iowans for D.C. Statehood. So now I'm thinking: If it's not a keep, maybe the "merge" target is actually Paul Strauss. What do you think??? Cielquiparle (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me that Strauss is directly involved in the organization, rather than just working alongside him in his capacity as a shadow senator. I think that of the potential merge targets, the general DC statehood article seems best, but I'm still not sure that we have coverage justifying its addition. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but we can use the same sources to say: He went to Iowa in 2015, 2016, 2020. He addressed the caucuses and spoke to reporters. He also had this local organization helping him out. (So yes, just a brief mention for the organization.) I already added IfDCS to the DC statehood page, just a mention of one of the many organizations supporting them, because the cited source totally listed them along with the others. To me that's enough, it's not exaggerating their impact or anything just to list them. Anyway I'm liking this idea more, will go try it out on the Strauss page, and will likely change my !vote. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to District of Columbia statehood movement or Iowa Democratic Party. MurrayGreshler (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to District of Columbia statehood movement. Upon re-reviewing each source for the umpteenth time, my conclusion is this: In most of the sources (including the DCist article), Paul Strauss (the shadow senator for D.C.) has a bigger footprint than Iowans for D.C. Statehood (the grassroots organization in Iowa). For this reason, I've gone ahead and added some of the detail about Strauss's activity in Iowa in 2015/2016/2020 using the same sources to his article page, and made sure that Iowans for D.C. Statehood is mentioned there. However, as the organization supports him but is not actually led by him, the redirect to the main District of Columbia statehood movement is most appropriate (and per the above discussion I've added a mention of Iowans for D.C. Statehood there, which seems like enough for now). (I wouldn't redirect to Iowa Democratic Party, as the organization is nominally bipartisan.) Cielquiparle (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to District of Columbia statehood movement. Although the subject passes WP:GNG based on currently provided sources, the contents are not enough to justify a stand alone article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my !vote yet again. I think we were debating what additional content, if at all, actually needed to be moved over to the District of Columbia statehood movement page. As far as I'm concerned, nothing more needs to be added. But for sure there is no need to !keep. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2022 (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.