Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forum for Equality

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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forum for Equality[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ORG, a lot of dead references. Pishcal — ♣ 00:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dead links have been fixed, and I think the organization's involvement in the Louisiana Supreme Court Case, Forum for Equality v. New Orleans, and another more recent same-sex marriage case, both of which received national press attention, plus that they remain the only statewide LGBT organization in Louisiana makes them notable and a nationally known entity. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 05:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - A brief search yields an awful lot of sources: As one of the groups most actively working against Louisiana's gay marriage laws, many of the sources are much more about those cases than about the organization, and there are a number of other matters they've been involved with (or which happened to its chairman in connection to the group's activities) that have gained some attention. While fewer, the sources which deal with the group beyond that of a passing mention seem to amount to marginally more than enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you to Rhododendrites for evaluating available sources. I'd be more free to accept coverage of its cases as being about the organization, too. --do ncr am 01:31, 5 January 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.