Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples

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 as no evidence of non-trivial independent coverage presented. Passing mentions do not suffice, and promoting a particular cause certainly does not. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples

A non-notable group. Despite cleanup this article still reads reads like a mixture of soapbox and advertising. Akihabara 01:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 01:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once you strip out the issue soapboxing, what you're left with is a brief (unsourced) article about one advocacy group, among very many, that doesn't demonstrate that it's a notable group. (Compare GLAAD, for example, which does demonstrate notability and cites references.) Fan-1967 03:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. I think that the references in the article prove that the Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples is notable. --Eastmain 07:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears both the added references are long, extensive articles about the issue, but with only very brief mentions of this group, buried deep in the articles. Fan-1967 16:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per 2 independent references, which is about 2 more than 70% of the Wikipedia articles. Previous comment confirm the organization is discussed in the articles. They do not have to be the primary subject. Edison 16:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the criterion per Wikipedia:Notability is "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" (emphasis added). Two brief mentions would not seem to satisfy that. Fan-1967 16:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let's not be WP:N nazis about this, this seems to be adequately referenced. -Toptomcat 18:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The organisation exists, and its purpose makes it notable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There still is alot in the way of sources, and the article seems to be soapboxy. Generally, a unique and noble purpose does not make one notable.-- danntm ^T _C 23:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Just H 23:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A noble organization working for a noble cause. Maddy626 09:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was tempted to go through and put {{fact}} and {{pov}} tags throughout the entire thing. Being "noble" doesn't mean notareity. SkierRMH 22:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Fabhcún 20:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toptomcat. If it's a bona fide public advocacy group, in the news, and it seems to be, it merits inclusion. Shawn in Montreal 01:56, 28 December 2006 (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.