Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender & Intersex Law Association

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. Black Kite (talk) 01:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender & Intersex Law Association[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no independent reliable significant coverage. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. --В и к и T 20:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources, clearly you didn't look hard enough JayJay^{Talk to me} 00:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. Can you show me these sources? NYyankees51 (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appropriate amount of coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the "keep" voters should share the sources they found. I looked moderately hard and could find very little. My impression is that the organization went out of existence a couple of years ago and didn't get much notice before that, though they were international in scope so there may be non-english sources. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FWIW I did not see sources with a quick Google search, but I might not have been thorough enough. If the above keep !votes could post where they see sources that would be great. OSborn^arf_contribs. 21:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The "Find sources" assigned by the AFD template is useless. This is because one of the very first things the article does is explain that this organization was founded under a different name in 1992 and coverage is more easliy locatable under its earlier name. In using modified search parameters, it seems we can find this international legal organization being quoted in news,[1] spoken of in books,[2] and found in seached through Googgle scholar.[3] While this nomination seems to be one of many such by this nominator seeking removal of improvable LGBT topics. My thought here is that we are far better off addressing concerns with improvement and sourcing through regular editing, than deleting because it had not yet been done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All those sources are passing or promotional mentions. Are there any that provide significant coverage? NYyankees51 (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV is but one of the ways by which we can ascertain notability, but not the only way. For that we look to the applicable guideline offering us accepted alternative criteria for determination. For which case as this we have for this LGBT organization 1) the scope of their activities is national or international in scale, and 2) information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The material here, published in book form as well as in the Journal of Homosexuality, tells us, in a foreword signed by two editors, that ILGLaw was formed at a conference of the International Bar Association in Amsterdam in 2000. Those are prestigious auspices. It won't be had to work this up. There are lots of other bits in this non-citable blog that reports on several 2002 conference papers. The speakers are clearly worthies. And according to the Journal of Homosexuality here, its female director for North America in 2005 was Mary Bonauto, a player of note in gay rights law. And in 2011, the org was partner in a project based at York University, mentioned here. Also a mention of conference activity in a newsletter published by the Catholic University of America. Just an intro with a (bad) link to the full report, but that's what research is all about....... And here it is: E. Graff, Letter from Toronto, July 13, 2005, in American Prospect. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very nice find. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, so this passes WP:GNG. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 01:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG, though I see how nom missed that. Would suggest he consider withdrawing the nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He can't withdraw, he's banned for pointy nominations of anything about gay people. This was one of them, should be snow closed like the rest.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah. I see that now. Indef blocked. Good point -- I agree w/a snow close, then.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You don't have to search hard at all to find coverage of the group. Google Books and bam, there you go. Silver seren^C 15:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Thanks to the editor above who posted the searches, my Google-fu is weak it seems. Passes notability. OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck !vote. I have no opinion on the notability debate below. OSborn^arf_contribs. 20:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the nom has been indef blocked: 22:26, 21 February 2012 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) blocked NYyankees51 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (persistent problematic edits moving from abortion to LGBT issues when banned from the former; reinstatement of original indefinite block). OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional research challenge: Its European branch is known as "ILGA-Europa". See this, which starts in German but includes an English translation. So firing up the Google machine for something like "Peter Schieder," ilga is very useful. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Thanks for the sources. I looked at each of them. Here are all the sources brought to the table for this AfD. I've included a snippet of context so that they can be found easily in the discussion above.

“The material here”: This looks like the most promising reference, but the author is R. Douglas Elliot, a founding member and past president of ILGLaw, so not at all independent.
“this non-citable blog' : is, as the editor says a blog, and by a participant in the conference, so presumably not independent.
“the Journal of Homosexuality here” : is again by Elliot
“project based at York University, mentioned here” : The sole mention of ILGLaw is their name in a list of 32 co-sponsors.
“newsletter published by the Catholic University of America “ : is, as the editor says, just an intro with a bad link.
“And here it is: E. Graff, Letter from Toronto, July 13, 2005” : may actually be independent, and reports on talks at a conference organized by ILGLaw, but says nothing about ILGLaw itself.
“ "ILGA-Europa". See this “ : appears to be a different organization, unless they have dropped the “Law” from their name. Also, not independent since this is the website of the organization.

I looked at the various google searches mentioned here, and I agree that the list above does seem to be the cream of the crop. So what this looks like to me is eight respected editors making very strong statements that this clearly passes GNG. But not one single source which comes even remotely close to being independent in-depth coverage of the subject.

Anyone want to discuss any of the sources? Dingo1729 (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, re-affirm Keep sentiment, especially per analyses by MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs) and by Bmclaughlin9 (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I re-affirm my Keep sentiment as well, as we have we an established and international known LGBT organization 1) the scope of whose activities is national or international in scale, and 2) information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. The GNG is not the sole criteria we may consider, only the easiest. At Wikipedia, we do not deny such organizations because they do not seek out publicity, but instead determine if their work is noteworthy enough to merit an article. In such cases we have other things we can consider. Toward the assertion that a former member and past president is not independent, okay... but self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. If founder R. Douglas Elliot can be considered an established expert on the topic (and as a multi-award-winning member of the Faculty of Law at University of Toronto, whose opinions are sought after and respected,[4][5] this appears more likely than not), and he chooses to write about the organization he fouded in a WP:NPOV neutral and non-self-serving fashion, his work may be considered. And toward blogs... they are not automaticaly verboten. We are not speaking here about references from some fandom's community forum, but instead about sites dealing with the interactions among educated professionals - experts in the fields of law with which they deal. Our only true concern here dealing with such a widely known and acknowldged advocacy group, is that we ensure that the article on the group remains neutral and information therein is sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for your response. It's interesting that we come to such wildly different conclusions from looking at the same sources. The only "third-party, independent, reliable sources" which have been mentioned here are numbers 4 and 6 in the list. Are these what you are basing the claim of notability on? My concern is of course that people are claiming that there are lots of sources out there, based on other peoples similar claims and this AfD is simply an echo chamber. I agree that some blogs and self-published sources can be used with caution when writing an article, but the third-party sources seem to almost non-existent. I'm not sure how you conclude that this is a "widely-known and acknowledged advocacy group". Do you disagree with my assessment of the sources which have been brought to this discussion? Dingo1729 (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that Dingo1729 has done a commendable job reviewing the sources that he did review above. I'm curious whether he limited his review to the above search, or extended it to those indicated below, and what his view is of what Schmidt points to as indicia of notability (that extends beyond the reviewed sources).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the two foreign language sources as 8. and 9. below BukuT's post below. Was they what you were asking about? Apart from that I did various searches, looking for a connection with the International Bar Association or anything involving LGBT or LGBTI and law and international. ILGLaw seems to have zero visibility in the legal community, even though, as BMcLauglin points out, they have a very impressive list of speakers at the conferences. Searching on "Global Arc of Justice" brings up some of the conference papers which individual speakers have preserved on their websites, but there doesn't seem to be any Proceedings published. I thought there must be some affiliation with the ILGBTIA which got confused with ILGLaw above, but again I found nothing. I really did do quite a lot of searching. Reading between the lines, my guess is that Elliot organized a conference, they had a good time, gave an award (to the plaintiff in Elliot's biggest case) then they all went home and forgot about it. They he organized another conference and so on. ILGLaw seems to be dormant except when a conference is organized, and the conferences get very little third-party notice. Were there any other sources you think I should look at? I'm not quite sure what you meant by the indications of notability. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I re-affirm my keep vote per above JayJay^{Talk to me} 19:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reaffirm my keep vote. I don't find your argument particularly compelling. Silver seren^C 19:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. International organiztion which is focused on the countries of the Balkans, Africa and other countries where gay rights are at a very low level. There is a greater chance of finding sources in local languages spoken in those countries. Have you sought sources in Serbian?[6] Have you sought sources in German? I do not speak German, but I found mentions in German Bild and Blick. You don't speak other languages? Then learn them, although I think that the presented sources in English are sufficient.--В и к и T 20:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pre-emptively criticizing my lack of fluency in foreign languages seems rather off-topic. However, thanks for the references:

8. "in Serbian?[7]": is an interview of R. David Elliot by a Serbian magazine. It talks a little about ILGLaw but I don't think it contains anything not in ref 1. Elliot doesn't seem to have a wikipedia entry, but I think he might qualify for one.

9. "found mentions": is, of course, an article about an anti-gay joke by Sepp Blatter and includes a quote from a german spokesman for ILGLaw. FIFA really need to get rid of Blatter.

8. would presumably be classed as non-independent and 9. as a passing reference. However, it did prompt me to look at the German Wikipedia. It does have an entry for ILGLaw, and a somewhat longer one than en.wiki because it includes bios for the regional representatives. But the references are even less than we have here. Perhaps there might be clues in some other wikipedias, but I think it should be your responsibility to check that, not mine.

I'm glad you said "I think that the presented sources in English are sufficient" because it gets rid of the rather annoying "there are plenty of sources, you just haven't looked hard enough yet" and allows us to discuss whether the sources really are sufficient. Dingo1729 (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you disagree with my assessment of any of the nine sources?Dingo1729 (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll confirm my keep. However difficult to accumulate sources quickly, as I tried above, the org's list of directors is formidable and I think the names of those who expected to attend and/or give papers at their 2009 conference demonstrate the org is noteworthy. Also available from the Williams Institute here. The number of attendees expected in 2009 was just 300, so we're not talking crowds. But the prominence of some names combined with the international reach is actually impressive. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Another research technique is to use the names of each of the ILGLaw directors and google them with ILGLaw or just gay or lesbian. Or the name of one of the ILGLaw conference cities. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely. What one needs to do when an AFD find sources template provides poor results is to search beyond its limitations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:13, 27 February 2012 (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.