Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay and Lesbian Employees at Microsoft

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. No consensus to delete. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gay and Lesbian Employees at Microsoft

Non-notable article about homosexual employees of microsoft. Article only has two sources. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-2-2008 • 05:57:28 05:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage by two national news outlets evinces better notability than probably 95% of the articles on wikipedia. The organization has clearly had an extramural impact, which should allay any lingering concerns about notability. Pop Secret (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Microsoft has been an example how an employer should treat LGBT people and has been covered by the press and examined by other companies and organizations. It is a very notable group. --Pinkkeith (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Pinkkeith (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Microsoft's involvement with Washington state's LGBT potential laws made national news and it could all be tied to their LGBT group. Article should be improved, not deleted. Banje boi 16:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a significant news story involving one of the most important companies in the world. It is hard not to assume there is more coverage of this subject beyond two magazines. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep. The issue actually came up in discussion today, and I was glad to find a reference at Wikipedia, with links, that helped me correct misunderstandings in both my own and the other person's knowledge of the facts surrounding this event. So it was helpful in a factual way, not a soap-boxy one. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.14.195 (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2008 (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.