Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Electorate of Gays And Lesbians (2nd nomination)

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 LGBT rights in Louisiana. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Electorate of Gays And Lesbians (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)

Does not appear to be a notable advocacy organization. Lawsuits they have filed have gotten press, but nothing about the group appears to be available. Originally nominated for deletion some time ago, and sources were found to be almost entirely about press releases or side mentions, including socking activity, and ended up being a non-admin closure. I've seen nothing to change my mind at this point about the notability of this group per our retention standards. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I encourage everyone to read the prior deletion debate before responding. I identified many sources at that time, some hidden behind pay walls. In the end, six editors favored keeping the article, and only the nominator favored deletion. This is an article about a historical topic with no promotional or advertising concerns. The non-administrative closure was entirely appropriate since consensus was crystal clear, so mentioning the closure contributes nothing to this debate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted when you offered some examples, none of them were sources about the subject. You opted not to respond further when that protest was raised, would you care to explain why PR blasts and articles not about the subject should confer notability in this instance? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Based on result of first AFD. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to LGBT rights in Louisiana. The significant coverage simply isn't present - they've accomplished some things, but they don't get covered as an organization. "A representative from LEGAL said..." as a pull-quote in an article on some LGBT rights development is not coverage of LEGAL. Since lawsuits are their main activity, significant cases in which they were involved are or could be covered in their state's article. BTW, I looked at the sources provided in the last AFD and also did searches of my own; the sources are trivial. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Roscelese. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per above. Or just delete (group appears to be long defunct anyway given ancient website with a WayBackMachine archived AOL address from 1998). Pax 08:33, 19 February 2015 (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.