- 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. ( non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce
- National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Quasi- advertorial article about an organization which may have a valid WP:ORG pass, but isn't sourcing that properly -- the referencing here is entirely to the organization's own primary source content about itself, with even the one "independent" source actually being a mere (deadlinked) reprint of one of the organization's own press releases about its own business awards program. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get an organization into Wikipedia -- I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be made a lot better than this, but it takes reliable source coverage about the topic in media, not the topic's own self-published content about itself, to get it into Wikipedia. Bearcat ( talk) 17:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- delete, with no prejuedice against recreation. Currently it fails WP:GNG. Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Major LGBT non-profit with many chapters around the US. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 18:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Major organization for the LGBTQ community, with state and international ramifications. Even rang NYSE Closing Bell once. What we need here are in-line references; we don't need a discouraging AfD. Zigzig20s ( talk) 19:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ringing the closing bell at the NYSE once is not, in and of itself, a notability claim. And an article does not get exempted from having to cite proper referencing just because better referencing might someday become possible — particularly when it's already been flagged for three full years as lacking proper referencing. Sure, proper referencing would change the equation here, but simply asserting the topic as "major" is not enough to get an article that's based entirely on primary sources kept, with an infinite deadline for the eventual addition of theoretical sources — reliable sources have to already be present in the article for it to become keepable in the first place. An article always lives or dies on its referencing, and never gets exempted from having to be referenced properly just because an unreferenced notability claim has been asserted.
Bearcat (
talk) 20:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Why didn't you look for references to add instead? I find that AfDs have a horrific chilling effect on editing.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 20:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- I did look for references, and didn't find any that were substantial and reliable, as opposed to more primary sourcing and/or glancing namechecks of its existence in news articles that aren't about it. That doesn't mean that other people with deeper database access to older US media coverage won't possibly be able to salvage it with some hunting — but it does mean that I've done as much WP:BEFORE as I can with the resources available to me. Bearcat ( talk) 21:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Why didn't you look for references to add instead? I find that AfDs have a horrific chilling effect on editing.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 20:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ringing the closing bell at the NYSE once is not, in and of itself, a notability claim. And an article does not get exempted from having to cite proper referencing just because better referencing might someday become possible — particularly when it's already been flagged for three full years as lacking proper referencing. Sure, proper referencing would change the equation here, but simply asserting the topic as "major" is not enough to get an article that's based entirely on primary sources kept, with an infinite deadline for the eventual addition of theoretical sources — reliable sources have to already be present in the article for it to become keepable in the first place. An article always lives or dies on its referencing, and never gets exempted from having to be referenced properly just because an unreferenced notability claim has been asserted.
Bearcat (
talk) 20:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm not so sure about the seperate notability of individual chapters or even of the Canadian organization that are also currently up for deletion, but the national U.S. organization seems clearly notable to me. Just today it's in many newspapers including the Washington Post [1] for its first-time ever presidential endorsement, and GNews shows other coverage of its assorted activities and controversies in major papers. [2] [3] [4] [5] -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 21:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- Keep: I would like to see some more inline sources and references in general, but what's there now shows that it is notable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:18 on September 27, 2016 (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.