Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado for Family Values


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Colorado for Family Values

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. No press coverage; all references are just passing mentions in book sources (save for a mention that the primary source is one of the co-founders of the organization). The only mention that it did anything was that it helped draft a piece of legislation that led to a Supreme Court case - NOT that it was involved itself with the Supreme Court case. Is that worthy of inclusion? fuzzy510 (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Not sure at first but because I think the article may be marginally notable and acceptable but I also would expect obvious signs of better improvement but I only found some links at News and Books. All in all though, I've been thinking and I may at best simply say delete for now . Notifying who asks to be notified of these subject AfDs as he may have some insight and also past user .  SwisterTwister   talk  07:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge with LGBT rights in Colorado. So keep and then merge. Don't "lose" all this referenced info!Zigzig20s (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Consider adding information to the LGBT Rights page, butthis should be deleted first. It's an argument, not npov, and should not be preserved.  DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - failed local advocacy group. Bearian (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Personally, I find the organization despicable and would like nothing more than see the article deleted, but it is covered in detail in the first chapter of this book and several discussions in other books cited are not just mentions but substantial. Like it or not, we probably should have an article on it. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep In general I do reluctant support articles on political organizations limited to a single state, but this seems to have enough general importance to be notable, based on the ref. given above  DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI: Note that you do already have a bolded Delete !vote above &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * fixed it--apparently I am indeed undecided, but on re-reading, I incline towards keep.  DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep or merge  There is enough coverage to write something here. (See also Stressor and resilience factors for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals confronting antigay politics, GM Russell, JA Richards - American journal of community psychology, 2003 - Springer) My impression is that lot of the coverage appears to be related to Amendment 2/Romer v. Evans, so I'd suggest considering the latter as a possible merge target, rather than LGBT rights in Colorado, unless non-trivial coverage of the organization's work outside Amendment 2 is available.  I agree with DGG's comments here both regarding neutrality here and the need to be cautious about political organizations. --joe deckertalk 16:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or Merge There seems like there's barely enough in reliable sources here, as per I am One of Many. And to anyone interested, the article could definitely use work - the tone and some of the content are not encyclopedic. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - It looks like the group has received a good amount of attention in high-profile popular press, law journals, and books, largely for drafting and sponsoring an amendment which went on to be the basis for a Supreme Court case (Romer v. Evans). But the coverage is not limited to that. In addition to the book linked by, sources as follows: Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, DePaul Law Review, Eyes Right! (book, South End Press); The Antigay Agenda (book, UChicago Pres); Associated Press via LA Times, New York Times, LA Times... I will note, however, that I did not go looking for sources critical of the group, but it's safe to say the way the article is written currently does not reflect the way it's covered in the body of literature on the subject. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.