Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community Action Against Homophobia

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 (by consensus.) --Aarktica 12:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community Action Against Homophobia

Non-notable organisation. Pablothegreat85 00:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. WP:LOCAL and WP:AGF. Mystache 01:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean. It seems sufficiently notable, but it still needs more nuts-and-bolts work. Lemonsawdust 04:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely notable but needs sources... --Valley2city^₪‽ 06:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I'm uncertain where the above "it's notable" opinions are basing this on - I did a web search on the topic and the only places I found this mentioned were on lists of LGBT organisations and on other activist pages' links sections. I can find no non-trivial secondary sources covering this group, which is a requirement of WP:ORG. As the article is completely devoid of any sources establishing notability - and indeed, doesn't even properly assert notability - my opinion has to be to delete. If someone with better search skills or better sources can find reliable sources that meet the demands of WP:ORG I will happily change my mind. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just to clarify the basis for my opinion: I did a search for the full organization name beforehand, and I got about 1400 hits. The organization is cited by a number of independent sources. You're very right, though, in saying that the page doesn't properly assert its notability. I think it should be cleaned up to reflect its sources, but I feel that the number of secondary sources - which, though generally from small organizations, aren't necessarily trivial under WP:ORG - warrants keeping it around so it can be given appropriate references. I hope that even if this doesn't change your mind it at least explains my personal rationale. Lemonsawdust 15:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Lemonsawdust - restructure to reference the secondary sources and assert notability. MastCell ^Talk 19:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article does not assert notability, though it could likely do so with the addition of some sources. If they are provided, I could be persuaded to change my mind. But folks, don't make us do your work for you. Realkyhick 20:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Merge to homophobia with an edit and further sourcing. Lostinlodos 08:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is a notable community activist organization for which there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards.-- Jreferee 23:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Google news brings up two articles mentioning the organization from three days ago, and there are over 40 more articles mentioning it in the archives. I also found an article through msn.com news. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: These articles all serve to demonstrate that there is a significant body of independent, non-trivial publication to warrant an article in Wikipedia. The WP:N guidelines, while stipulating that groups with only local scope are "usually" not notable, does not say that nationally important groups with a primarily local scope are usually not notable. My Keep is as strong as ever, given the significant non-trivial documentation this group has. Lemonsawdust 05:09, 25 April 2007 (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.