Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBTI Health Summit


 * 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

LGBTI Health Summit

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article has had an unmet request for improved citations since May 2010. Current citations are mostly dead links, with no real evidence of notability. Few citations are still live (live citations are Eric Rofes blog, LGBT Health UK, LGBT Tobacco) and these sources lack notability or a common connection, simply being loosely related to LGBT health in two different countries. While an article on one or more of those sources might potentially be appropriate, it's my view that this article is not the correct vehicle for that. Trankuility (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the requirements for 'notability' are, but these events brought hundreds of LGBTI health activists together for influential discussions over the years. It may be true that some of the links are dead, but that is a reflection of the impermanent nature of internet presence of a diffuse, unfunded group of activists without a central organization, not the influence of that movement. Agreed that this article is not about LGBT Health or LGBT Tobacco, those are incidental links. The article is about the meetings themselves, which is what had an enduring impact on many health activists who attended them. Bill.jesdale (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Bill.jesdale I think that removing the incidental UK and Tobacco links is desirable, based on your comment. However, that leaves unaddressed the very significant core issue: that the "enduring impact" you suggest must be verifiable through independent, reliable sources. This article appears to have never had such references. It's not clear that it should be in Wikipedia; it's still my view that it shouldn't be here. Trankuility (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Bill.jesdale, the core requirement for "notability" on Wikipedia is evidence that the topic has been covered in reliable sources. That is, its notability would be demonstrated by referencing it to media coverage (magazines, newspapers, TV/radio, etc.) or books which talk about the event and the enduring impact and influence that you claim it has. This article, however, is sourced almost entirely to primary sources (the main websites of organizations and programs that were involved in it) that don't confer notability, because they aren't independent of the subject. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For future reference, notability is significant (long) coverage in reliable sources (big papers like New York Times are best, and on down to where sometimes blogs can be counted as reliable, but usually not) that are independent of the subject (so even ABC News coverage of an ABC program would not be independent). Manifestos and such can be cited by NGOs themselves, as they prove better than anyone that the text of the manifesto is accurate, but the rest of the article needs Reliable Sources RS. Anarchangel (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm seeing some nice source coverage at: . Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 01:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Delete per lack of coverage, fails WP:GNG, but consider merging/redirecting to List of LGBT-related organizations and conferences. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of LGBT medical organizations, where it is already mentioned. There is not enough independent sourcing to establish this conference as notable. The search links supplied by Cirt confirm that the conference exists, but no more than that. --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The assertion that the sources are not independent is mistaken, as shown by three testimonials on a blog and Vesper Graphics...? How could anyone even think that was a related organization? It is not until the third of the sources in the Google search that there is a participant in the summit. Anarchangel (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Anarchangel, personally I thought your first comment, about reliable sources was more on the mark; of the sources you've just given, one is a blog and the other is a graphic design/software developer site. Neither tell us much about the event(s) other than tangential personal experiences or technical requirements. Neither confirms the WP:Notability of the event for the purposes of a Wikipedia article. As a side note, there have been no updates to the article itself that improve the referencing. Trankuility (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The other voters did no more than assert that all the sources were primary, and I simply refuted that. I just chose the first two sources listed in Google and made no attempt to find the best sources available; there were too many. Furthermore, I do not agree with you about the indepth nature of even those random sources. Journalists are known for reporting their own experience; it is pretty much a job description. And technical requirements? What is inappropriate about that, anyway? Anarchangel (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, the problem with the technical page is that it requires original research to extrapolate the notability of the event. Bearcat, MelanieN and me have all questioned the lack of independent verifiable sources - this is not simply an assertation about primary sources, but about the quality of third party sources. Thanks. Trankuility (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "requires original research to extrapolate the notability of the event" : Please explain. Anarchangel (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not possible to explain the notability of the event directly based on the technical reference. Trankuility (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep in view of a source that I don't believe has been included in the discussions above, "Epstein, Steven. "Sexualizing Governance and Medicalizing Identities: The Emergence ofState-Centered'LGBT Health Politics in the United States." Sexualities 6.2 (2003): 131-171.", which was also adapted for the same authors piece in "The Health of Sexual Minorities", the PDF of the latter (and I suspect the coverage is identical, I"m not claiming these are truly "multiple sources") puts a number of sentences paragraphs into the summit, and it's history, enough to qualify as one half of WP:GNG, and I believe sources provided above make or more than make the rest of the hurdle. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:35, 27 June 2014 (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.