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 delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 19:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Ontario Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce

Ontario 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)

Nonnotable organization. Nothing but typical promotional material. No significant independent coverage. The page owner edit warred about the notablity tag refusing to discuss the concern in article talk page, so I guess the problem with the article is uncurable in a civilized way, so I am listing it for deletion. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Nominatior can't seem to accept that the page meets the criteria as listed on the article's talk page. Talk:Ontario Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 23:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Nomination appears to be homophobic. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 00:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I've removed a personal attack. Comment on the merits of the article, not on what you think the motivations of the nominator are. clpo13_{( talk)} 00:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • comment Yes I cannot accept that the page meets the criteria, because the OP did not answer my request to indicate which exactly sources cited provide significant independent coverage, so that I could reconsider my opinion. Instead, I was answered with personal attacks. Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• borderline case. I'd keep it with notability template - as it currently stands, most of the sources fail short of being independent & secondary. OTOH, I see nothing "homophobic" here; stating that not every LGBT organization is necessarily notable is hardly that. "Me-123567-Me", please tone down. AGF, all that. Calling someone's actions "homophobic" hardly helps a civilized discussion. Poponuro ( talk) 12:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fails WP:BRANCH (a subsection of WP:NCORP) – "the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area". Simply not enough coverage. A redirect could be made to Canadian Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, but I'm not sure its necessary. ¡Boz zio! 05:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Normally I'd agree, but the OGLCC is older than the CGLCC. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 22:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Given the accusations of homophobia being flung around, I'm going to preface this with a reminder that I'm a gay man myself. But gay topics do not get an automatic notability freebie on Wikipedia just because the word gay is involved — notability still has to be properly demonstrated through the use of reliable source coverage. But as written, this depends almost entirely on primary sources like the organization's own press releases and its own self-published website. Literally just one reference here (Globe and Mail, #2) counts for anything toward notability — but it's a blurb, which means it would be an acceptable source amid a mix of acceptable sources but it can't carry the organization over WP:ORG all by itself as the article's only acceptable source. Sure, the organization probably would qualify for a more substantive and better sourced article than this — but none of the sourcing present here gets it over ORG as written. No prejudice against draftifying, to give the creator a chance to make it better than this — but this, as written, is neither substantive enough nor referenced well enough to earn inclusion as things stand right now, and there's no homophobia required to reach that conclusion. Bearcat ( talk) 21:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - not a notable organization. Magnolia677 ( talk) 19:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Note: National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce was just kept in its own afd. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 00:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Please see other stuff exists. Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply

And please see WP:IGNORE. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 02:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Please read WP:Understanding IAR. IAR is not just a license to do any random thing you want without regard to the rules. It requires that you make a compelling and credible case about how "ignoring the rule" is actually improving the encyclopedia, and is not a license to just do anything you want to do on here — for instance, IAR never allows you to stack an article topic's notability entirely onto its own primary source content about itself, or to write an article in an advertorial rather than encyclopedic tone, because those things aren't "improving the encyclopedia". What it permits is things like "there's a substantive reason why we should deviate from normal naming conventions here, because X, Y and Z", not "this topic is exempted from having to be sourced properly for no other reason than just because IAR exists". Bearcat ( talk) 20:39, 6 October 2016 (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.