Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Arizona Pride

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Arizona Pride[edit]

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

No indication that the organization meets the notability guidelines for inclusion. The single article given as reference is the only secondary source I could find on Google about them. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This organization is not recognized by the IRS as a non profit organization. Possible fraudulent schemes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidA373 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but only because it is too new and there are not yet enough reliable sources with significant coverage to make a decent stub. I've done some on-line searches, and have verified its existence and am satisfied that it is not fraudulent. I need to emphasize that recognition or non-recognition by the IRS is irrelevant to is veracity; DavidA373's ad hominem to the contrary borders on the intersection of homophobia and defamation. The I.R.S. allows many different types of non-profits, from 528s to the Elks Lodges, some of which are charities, but most are not. On the other hand, its verifiability doesn't make it notable. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only a single published article has covered this very new organization. It may be notable in the future, but for now it fails WP:NONPROFIT. - Mr X 01:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have no idea whether this organisation is involved in "[p]ossible fraudulent schemes" because there is no reliable sources. In any case, that's irrelevant to notability. The Tucson Weekly article isn't useful as a source as the bulk of the material in the article is jut a big quote from Southern Arizona Pride's web site. -- Whpq (talk) 22:31, 18 December 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.