Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tucson Pride

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tucson Pride

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}} or {{subst:canvassed|username}}

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

No indication of the geographically disperse sourcing required to meet ORG John from Idegon (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a regional event and organization held in Tucson, Arizona. Referenced are article from Tucson and Phoenix. This page is about Arizona's first and oldest LGBT organization approaching its 40th anniversary (making it one of the oldest in the nation) This move by John is anti LGBT harassment in its most blatant form in that this page has been under attack from day one first by C.Fred and now by John from Idegon. If this page is to be deleted due to ORG then all other Pride pages such as San Diego, San Francisco, New York and Orlando need to be deleted as well. Christopher Street West has now been contacted to observe the proceedings here as well.Robert Rowlkey (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event does seem to meet the standards for inclusion, as there have been multiple reliable sources reporting on the event. Robert, I will advise you that calling people "homophobes" as you did for opposing an article and believing it is worthy of deletion is considered a personal attack. Please be sure you read up on WP:NPA, s this kind of behavior is highly frowned upon here. While you feel very passionate about this article, be sure to keep a level head, and do not immediately throw out accusations of harassment or homophobia. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organization/event does meet the standards for inclusion, as there are multiple reliable sources reporting on the event. My apologies for believing from his profile that John is homophobic (I have deleted the reference). I have created two pages on Wikipedia, both about LGBT organizations, both under threat of deletion. This article about an organization of historic significance is being threatened with deletion due to lack of relevance and yet a mall here in Tucson isn't. This makes zero sense. Thank you for your Keep vote.Robert Rowlkey (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others noting coverage and notability —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will be happy to withdraw this nomination if someone, anyone, can show me a WP:RS source outside of Arizona that is discussing this organization. Talk is cheap. John from Idegon (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that Tucson Pride doesn't seem to be a local chapter of a national organization so I don't believe WP:BRANCH actually applies. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:NGO, under additional considerations, it states we should consider: Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. As Tucson Pride is one of the oldest groups (almost 40 years old), that points to notability. They've manage to persist and organize successful events despite being in a largely anti-gay state. as noted here by The Advocate (a national publication). —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs more WP:RS, but a Gnews search reveals no shortage of prominent coverage. Easily meets WP:ORG. This requirement that T.P. receive coverage outside the state is not policy. This is not a local chapter of a larger entity; not a state chapter of something else, if even there are other groups elsewhere in the country (and the world) that use "Pride" in their organization or event name. Keep.. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn in Montreal, you should read the subsection of ORG linked at AUD. Corp/Org is an exclusionary guideline, requiring a higher standard than GNG, unlike all the NPEOPLE standards, which offer a lower level of notability than GNG. This is a necessary guideline, lest every local five and dime qualify for an article. John from Idegon (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're try to say but if you do a Google News search we do have enough coverage from reliable independent sources to meet any reasonable standard of GNG, including a photo essay from the national publication Advocate. As for this "local five and dime" thing, that's really just your personal sentiment. It's not policy and I remind you Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if only to spite a certain someone. I'm not petty, I swear. clpo13_(talk) 00:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW per Wikimandia. And Clpo13, no matter how much the little devil sitting on my shoulder wants to agree with you, you should probably give Gravedancing a read. John from Idegon (talk) 02:07, 8 November 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.