Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DignityUSA

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DignityUSA[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. No sources. I think it would be better to start fresh. the one sean 21:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The ONE National Gay and Lesbian Archives holds "47.8 linear feet (94 archive boxes)" of records and information on DignityUSA, from its founding in 1969 through the 1990s. Within that material are undoubtedly any number of independent reliable sources that establish the notability of the organization. That sources are difficult to access does not obviate their existence. There are also any number of other reliable sources that discuss the group but they are difficult to tease out online because a) they were created before the routine digitization of sources and b) the word "dignity" leads to a lot of false positives. Pre-Internet subject matter is often extremely hard to source and LGBT history, which has been routinely erased and disappeared, even more so. "Better to start fresh" indicates that the nominator believes that materials exist upon which an article can be built, thus there is no valid reason for deletion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added information from reliable source about the group as it relates to the Vatican's declarations on homosexuality. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, literally hundreds of good secondary sources out there. — Cirt (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A myriad of sources are readily available and easy to find with the most modest of Google searches. Sportfan5000 (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per the other users. This is a major national group that has plenty of sources available on all sides of the discussion surrounding these issues in Roman Catholicism. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2013 (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.