Talk:List of LGBT-related organizations and conferences

Sticky note: Holding area for red-linked listings which need secondary sources
This is a holding area (or rescue area) for listings which do not have articles, and for which secondary sources could not by found by at least one editor. Please move items back to main list if secondary sources (news articles, books, etc.) are found to establish notability. This is not a talk thread, please start new sections at the bottom of this talk page for discussions.
 * Border Riders Motorcycle Club (United States, Canada)
 * Notes: Could not find anything usable in google hits or google news hits. Outsider80 (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A.S.V.Gay - Amsterdam Student Association Gay (Netherlands)
 * Factory of Equality (Fabryka Równości) (Poland)— Polish cultural and education LGBT organization. [web page (in English) ]
 * Marriage Equality USA
 * Outreach LGBT Community Center Madison, Wisconsin

US States
Should we add a sub-section for US states?

tdempsey 16:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion
The article List of transgender-support organizations was recently deleted, and now List of transgender-rights organizations is up for deletion. Please weigh in on the discussion there, as the outcome will inevitably set a precendent for this article as well. See Articles for deletion/List of transgender-rights organizations. ntennis 23:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: the List of transgender-support organizations deletion discussion has been re-opened. See Articles for deletion/List of transgender-support organizations. ntennis 02:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Categorization
It really needs to be categorized nation by nation... Towsonu2003 07:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Scope?
Are we limiting ourselves to su deposuorganizations which already have articles or is ANY LGBT organization eligible for this list? 10:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC) konteyner

Deletion of relevant topics?
Is there a reason JoshuaKuo deleted my addition of relevant topics? David Nelson (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not. JoshuaKuo spent just 28 seconds considering to delete my additions which were relevant, local and accurate. He seems to do a lot of that kind of "revert" vandalism. David Nelson (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC) kabin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.183.142.28 (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of items without articles
All organizations without articles of their own were removed from the list by Outsider80 with the argument that “this is not a yellow pages of every LGBT group in the world. [T]he DMOZ link at the bottom of the page serves this purpose.” Later, hidden h.t.m.l. comments were added to every section: “Please only list organizations which have articles. If the organization meets WP:NOTABILITY guidelines and does not have an article already, please consider starting one first.” Notability is required for a subject to have an article, but not to appear on a list. All over Wikipedia are numerous lists on which the majority of items have no articles, and that’s perfectly fine. A list of only subjects with articles is pointless; that’s what categories are for. If the list is too long because “every LGBT group in the world” is on it, then it should be broken into shorter lists rather than purged of relevant items. There is certainly no rule saying that even notable subjects mustn’t appear on a list until they have articles. Also, the DMOZ link is to a directory of current organizations, yet numerous historic organizations which no longer exist were expunged from this list, organizations that have no place on the linked DMOZ page. Based on this argument, I am reverting the article to an earlier version. Elyaqim (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I support Outsider's position on this. Allowing red-linked org's onto the list allows persons to promote their own non-notable entities on Wikipedia. If they're really that important, and if they "historic organizations" are really that important, you're welcome to write articles on them. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 13:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So then you are in fact saying even notable organizations must not be on the list unless an article already exists? That’s certainly not in the spirit of Wikipedia. That I am welcome to write these articles but have not yet done so does not affect notability. “[Allowing] persons to promote their own non-notable entities” should of course be discouraged and the items removed on a case-by-case basis, but a prohibition against any item that doesn’t already have an article is extreme and censoring, and would seem to be a rule for this list and no other. Elyaqim (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I admit it was probably was overkill to delete all of the non-article org's, but without some occasional maintenance this list risks becoming a dumping ground for self-promotional material. The people-counterpart of this list (List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people) does not indiscriminately list every gay person on the planet, only those that meet a certain notability threshhold.
 * P.S. Disagreeing with another editor's actions is fine, but the criminal indictment was a bit much. I clearly noted my actions (the removals & the hidden comments) in the edit prefabriksummaries, it was not some huge secret. Outsider80 (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My intent was to state the facts in one paragraph as a rationale or defense of my reversion, so latecomers wouldn’t have to look through the page’s history for information that was in more than one place. No criminal indictment was intended; no huge secret was assumed. (I also originally placed this section of the discussion at the top of the page, thinking that location, like in a Web log, is where the most recent issues should go. That may have exaggerated how important I felt the issue to be.) Currently the list is long but not unwieldy, although it is a little unfocused. Allowing some not particularly noteworthy organizations on the list, and the vigilance required prefabrikto screen blatantly self-promotional entries are small prices to pay for a healthy list that documents the diversity of our community. Elyaqim (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How do we determine an organization is notable konteynerunless it already has an article? I would prefer that red-links be prohibited by default. If someone wants to include an organization they believe to be notable, then they should have to submit it here. Iff consensus deems it notable, then it will be added. That better serves the interest of barring nns better than does allowing everything that hasn't been proven nn. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries on the thread placement, it is a common mistake... Having a healthy list is good, but if an org wouldn't qualify for an article, then it should be questioned whether it should be listed at all. This is similar to the LGBT people list threshhold: if the person wouldn't qualify for an article, person isn't notable enough to be listed (though that list may actually require an article be created in the first place, but it is much bigger t han this article & has WP:BLP issues to deal with). If all an org's listing offers is the name of the org and its URL, then that is missing the point of Wikipedia (re: previously cited WP:NOTDIR). Wikipedia is not a yellowpages for the world's non-profit groups. Personally, I don't have a problem with having redlinks--though ideally with in-line tags to secondary sources, to help establish notability (WP:ORG) until an article is actually created for it. If no such sources can be found to meet the criteria, then it probably shouldn't be here (my 2 cents..) Outsider80 (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that the URLs of the orgs shouldn't be on here at all. ELs are not supposed to be in the body of articles, excepting when they serve as references. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree that it is pretty sloppy (probably many were added by IP editors though, so it actually does serve a purpose-- just needs to be cleaned up), will try to replace them with citations to specific pages on the sites. (at least as a temporary measure to justify notability until articles are created or better ref's found) Outsider80 (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there anything you want me to do? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hiya, (actually checked my watchlist right after you posted)... I'm not in charge here, so whatever you feel like or think needs done.. :-) I think the only remaining bloc of items that needs to be moved out to another list is the Pride events, which I was going to do next. Then whatever remains that doesn't have an article could use ref's, for all the reasons discussed above (there are more than a few of those listings if you wanted to pitch in too) Outsider80 (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I was just deferring to you; you seem to be the most active editor on here. I'll start finding refs for the remaining items; I'll start from Z and work my way up. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, how are we doing this? I just googled "ucla queer alliance", and the only third-party coverage in the first page of results were things along the lines of "the ucla queer alliance is sponsering X event". Is this reason enough to remove the entry, or not? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * probably would be better to just move it to talk rather than just deleting*, maybe we could have a section at the top of the talk page to use as a holding area for items that either need better refs or be deleted out (did a quick google search & google news search and it does look sketchy, but maybe sourcing can be found) Outsider80 (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC) *i say this not out of hypocrisy, but learning from my past experience after the sledge-hammer edit to the page I did a few days ago :-D


 * Ok, I'll move things here that I don't consider to have enough coverage to establish notability. But let it be known I'm a deletionist. I'm going to err on the side of moving things out of the article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sections: change from A-Z to geographic ?
Would there be any opposition to changing the sections from A-Z to geographic? This would be more intuitive as a reader is more likely to be looking for organizations in a particular continent or country, rather than "all organizations that begin with K" Outsider80 (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * nevermind... after starting the process, realized how many items are here that actually belong on other list articles. Once the Rights organizations (already done), Community centers, Pride events, and blatant (non-organization) spam (there are a few in there) are moved out, the list will be alot less cluttered. Outsider80 (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Organization article deletion
The article 5degrees, about an LGBT-related non-profit organization in Singapore, has been deleted as the result of a WP:PROD action. Mentioning here in case there is interest in recovering the article as a redirect to a new line item entry here. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 12:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)