Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Association for Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgender People

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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Association for Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgender People[edit]

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

The topic of the article does not really seem to be that notable. Additionally, it barely has 5 hits per day the last 90 days Kostas20142 (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The nominator, Shawn in Montreal, has not provided any valid reason for deleting this article. "The topic of the article does not really seem to be that notable" is about as convincing as "I don't like it." Then he says it only gets 5 hits a day, which is not at all a ground for deletion. One problem is that it has a different name in its country than in English, butthe English name gets about 1100 Google hits. See [1] I looked through some of these but it is not immediately clear which of the foreign sources are considered reliable sources in Wikipedia terms.Edison (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Shawn wasn't the nominator, he only did the deletion sorting : Noyster (talk), 11:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks independent reliable sources for notability, WP:Org Cllgbksr (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organisation is praised by various sources as Norway's leading LGBT organisation.[2][3] There's detailed coverage of some of its work in a book published by Routledge[4]. My Norwegian is very limited but it is mentioned many times in the Norwegian press e.g. Aftenposten[5]. An alternative to deletion would be merging to LGBT rights in Norway. But currently the arguments for deletion are very weak: mainly "There aren't any sources cited in the article" rather than "There aren't any sources anywhere". Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally fails WP:GNG. Firstly, on Google, this article comes up straight-away. Secondly, the title does not mention Norwegian LGBT Peeps. It says, National, so that's misleading. Reads like WP:PROMOTIONAL SW3 5DL (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your "firstly" reasoning seems just a bit strained. If you google "Paris", "chimpanzee", and "quantum mechanics", the relevant Wikipedia articles come up first in the results every time. I assume you wouldn't recommend deleting those articles. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 04:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, couldn't have a more notable role in Norwegian minority rights history. Geschichte (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a very important organization, especially historically. Searching for the older names of the organization gives many more search results than the very recently created name. For example, "Det norske forbundet av 1948" gives hits 317 hits in the National Library of Norway's database (as in 317 different books, newspapers and such), "Fellesrådet for homofile organisasjoner" gives 23 hits (including paper encyclopaedias and the Norwegian parliament), "LLH" is more challenging to search for, as other organizations also use that name, but combining LLH with relevant words gives 500+ hits in the database (including, for example, government studies and statements).

Simply Googling the current name (and criticizing said name) isn't enough to evaluate of an organization is notable or not, nor is the current state of the article. If it should be necessary to disambiguate the title, then "(Norway)" should be added at the end of the Wikipedia title, but I don't think that's necessary seeing there appears to only be one "National Association for Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgender People". Manxruler (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Manxruler: On the contrary, if the name is moved to include Norway, then I'm fine with the keep. My point is, this is specific to Norway and should so state that. Just because there's no other group calling itself by this same name, doesn't mean there won't be in the future. This could be America, or Canada, or England, or France. Moving the page to include Norway, makes it relevant there. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be historically significant. If so, it's inevitably notable. More sources are needed, but I see no reason to delete. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 04:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but I'd like to see the page move to same title and (Norway). Just because it's the only org with this title as far as we know, doesn't mean it always will be the only one. The sources need to be improved and there's no getting past that. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and agree with preceding about the title. Searches more successful under the former initials LLH. Generally described as Norway's main national association in this sector: [6]. In-depth coverage in David Paternotte; Manon Tremblay (3 March 2016). The Ashgate Research Companion to Lesbian and Gay Activism. Taylor & Francis. pp. 239–. ISBN 978-1-317-04290-7.: Noyster (talk), 11:02, 4 April 2017 (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.