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. postdlf ( talk) 22:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC) reply

LGBT culture in Vancouver

LGBT culture in Vancouver (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

While not a horrible idea in theory, to be a genuinely useful article this would need to contain some real substance and reliable sourcing about this as a topic -- look, for instance, at LGBT culture in Liverpool and LGBT culture in New York City for two much better examples of this kind of thing. As constituted, however, all that's actually here is a simple barebones list of the same individual things that are already filed in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:LGBT culture in Vancouver and/or contextualized in Davie Village anyway. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody's prepared to put in the sourcing and the substance to make this a worthwhile article, but as written this just isn't actually accomplishing anything we aren't already doing better in other places. Bearcat ( talk) 21:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep (article creator). Yes, the article needs a ton of work, but deleting is not the solution. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 23:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply

The solution isn't for this to just stand as is for years and years, either — if you feel strongly enough that this should exist but need time to get it up to a keepable standard, then that can always be done in draftspace or user sandboxspace. Creating articles in mainspace that don't even meet a minimal standard of usefulness at the outset isn't desirable, however. Bearcat ( talk) 23:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't think it's fair to assume this page would remain exactly as is for years to come. This seems like an easy keep to me, but I'll step away from this discussion now and let others decide. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 02:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete no secondary sources provided, no particular sign of notability. I might support a Rename to something like "List of LGBT-related organization in Vancouver". Power~enwiki ( talk) 23:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Just FYI, there is a secondary source used, though I had failed to add the "Reflist" template so the source was hiding at the bottom of the article. I've corrected this error. There are also a couple helpful external links, and some simply Googling would show there are plenty of additional sources that could be used to expand this article. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 02:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep The article needs additions and some reworking, but I doubt someone may argue the notability of the topic. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 13:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep and continue to update. Google search has a lot of coverage and sources of this topic. Earnsthearthrob ( talk) 15:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - sources show, on the whole significant coverage needed for general notability. Bearian ( talk) 02:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE. The article is pretty much only a list of businesses and festivals; there's no evidence of any special local culture distinct from the wider North American LGBT culture. Pretty much any North American LGBT community has its bars, pride parades, local advocacy organizations, etc. I see no evidence that Vancouver is notably distinct from other places, so it also fails WP:GNG. - GretLomborg ( talk) 21:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Incomplete does not equal non-notable. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 21:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC) Note: My comment applied to your initial comment, which was changed. Thanks! --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 21:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - there's a certain amount of original research and synthesis in all of this. But it's sourced and factual. - Richard Cavell ( talk) 13:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - commonsense that in a metro region of 2 million+ there is a large gay culture worthy of discusion on Wikipedia. Sourcing shouldn't even be a point of challenge, but the index of Queer Mobilizations: Social Movement Activism and Canadian Public Policy, published by University of British Columbia Press [1], has plenty of material showing that this "is a thing". Not to mention the entire contents of Category:LGBT culture in Vancouver: essentially what the "delete" voters are saying is that each of these entries is an independent topic and there is no coherence to the category, which is plainly false. Perhaps there is some bias (unconscious, AGF) being reflected in comments like this isn't "a worthwhile article", "no evidence of any special culture" and so on? Sending this to AfD the same day it's been created and criticizing it for not being built out (yet) seems vexatious from where I'm sitting. - Bri ( talk) 19:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I think the category makes a lot more sense for this than an article. - GretLomborg ( talk) 05:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep a walk down Davie Street in Vancouver is all you need to see that this is a notable topic. Fix the page don't delete it. Legacypac ( talk) 22:49, 21 June 2017 (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.