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 redirect to Paul Martin Pearson. The argument to redirect is more compelling than keeping a standalone article on this topic. I'm not seeing any agreement that the available sources are enough to provide sufficient content on which to base a full article on this event. This doesn't mean that the event still can't be covered elsewhere. ‑Scottywong| [gossip] || 05:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1933 United States Virgin Islands governor referendum[edit]

1933 United States Virgin Islands governor referendum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page seems to have no english sources and no google searching could find any reliable sources that pertained to this article, therefore I believe that it fails to reach any type of notability guidelines.Alex the Nerd (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm - The only source is that German database, and we'd certainly want more than that to keep. This needs looking into more closely - the database as it's source lists "William W. Boyer, America's Virgin Islands , Durham 1983, pp. 149-152" - has anyone had a chance to read this? FOARP (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep @FOARP: Although I have only been able to carry out a limited search of the book, the figure of 7,366 votes (the number cast against the proposal) shows up on page 152 (as mentioned by the database). The database is a reliable source and it (and its author Beat Müller) is regularly cited in academic works.[1][2] Number 57 12:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still hazy on this. We know that the figure is mentioned there, but we don't know anything else about it. Anyway, at least two supporting references are needed for a WP:GNG pass - thus far only one is available. FOARP (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It also says that it was an inofficial referendum, so it was more of a poll than a referendum, if I understand correctly. So I don't think it meets notability if its only mentioned in one database, citing one book. Alex the Nerd (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That (it being an unofficial poll) is the one thing that I think is a proper argument for deletion. The lack of sources is more likely due to us not having access to contemporary media coverage. Number 57 23:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Paul Martin Pearson? All the content is already there. Even if this weren't a "private referendum", not every item on the ballot is automatically notable. Reywas92^Talk 20:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. I had just typed something like Reywas92 just said when my computer crashed. This was an opinion poll, not a proper vote, and a turnout of 7,500 out of a population of 100,000 or so is pretty abysmal. Nothing happened as a result; Pearson remained in office, and as far as anyone knows, the policy remained in place. The vote was entirely ignored. In the absence of any sources discussing its significance, there is no grounds for an article. SpinningSpark 20:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Spinningspark: In 1933 the islands' population was only 23,000. In a referendum fifteen years later there were only 5,509 registered voters and only 1,500 bothered to vote. The 7,500 turnout wasn't beaten until a referendum in 1970, so was actually pretty significant. Number 57 21:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't change the fact that there is no significant coverage in sources. My reoommendation stands. SpinningSpark 22:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say that it did, just correcting the assertion that the turnout was abysmal, when in fact it was around a third of the population. If anyone has access to contemporary sources, that would help. Unfortunately it can be quite difficult to find decent sources for Caribbean islands from this period and there are several elections from the 1920s and 1930s that currently have no article because I have been unable to access historical newspapers for the region (yet). If this was held now I have no doubt that would be sufficient coverage for an article. Number 57 23:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Reywas92 - The referendum appears to have happened, but barring any further sources indicating notability this is a WP:GNG fail. Therefore let's note that the referendum took place on the page of the governor and leave it at that. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As stated by Number 57, this does appear to be a highly notable event. Just because the source itself isn't in English doesn't mean that it's not notable. SuperChris (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with the source is not that it's in German, but that it is merely a database entry, and as such does not support notability. SpinningSpark 19:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think this is highly notable? IMO its not a government referendum, but one held by a civic betterment association, which led to zero effects on the governor, he wasn't even replaced until two years and a Senate investigation later. Alex the Nerd (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am ambivalent about these unofficial referendums, but in this case I think the fact that around a third of the entire population voted probably makes it notable, as turnout is akin to that of a formal referendum (in fact, per the stats above it was the highest turnout in the islands until 1970). Number 57 13:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep? our article possibly has the date wrong, it's October 20, 1933, and received national U.S. coverage. However, there were no coverage of the results, was not an official referendum, and Pearson at least appeared to keep his job as he had been reappointed the week before. There is coverage, though, including from the L.A. Times, and there's every good chance it can be improved with proper research. [3] [4] SportingFlyer T·C 09:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer: I don't have a newspapers.com account, so can you tell me if there is any indication in those sources that they go beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. On the face of it, reporting on the day the results were announced is pretty much what ROUTINE and NOTNEWS are meant to address – no long term notability. SpinningSpark 14:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact a referendum was occurring - in the Virgin Islands of all places - was indeed national news in the 1930s, though the results of the referendum were not covered by any newspapers within newspapers.com's purview. There's enough to write an article on. It certainly was not a "routine" event. SportingFlyer T·C 15:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notable enough for news != notable enough for encyclopedia page. If you don't even have the results in those sources, I don't see how they can be enough to write an article. SpinningSpark 15:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I find it very relevant the LA Times would spend inches on it in 1933. You're welcome to disagree. SportingFlyer T·C 02:29, 20 November 2019 (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.