Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Electorate of Gays And Lesbians


 * 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) Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Louisiana Electorate of Gays And Lesbians

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to be a notable advocacy organization. Lawsuits they have filed have gotten press, but nothing about the group appears to be available. PROD contested. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and my recommendation is made without any doubt. Although some of the references are to non-independent sources, this organization is an important part of the history of human rights in Louisiana, and has been covered extensively by the Baton Rouge Advocate, the newspaper of record for Louisiana's state capital. These articles are hidden behind a paywall, but that does not disqualify them in any way. As the organization no longer exists, there are no promotional issues. The many independent reliable sources, taken as a whole, make it clear that this organization is both notable and of historical significance.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  02:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you offer up some of these articles that talk specifically about the organization? I understand they're behind a paywall, but if it's about them, we should be able to get headlines, maybe opening paragraphs, or some sort of significant evidence. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a source. This book describes the group's legal strategy. This CBS News report, published several years after it shut down, recognizes the group's historical significance. This gay magazine gives significant coverage to the group. Here is a description from a Tulane University website. Here's coverage from the The Herald-Times, an Indiana daily paper. Here's coverage from the The Florida Times-Union. When a group exists primarily for the purpose of taking legal action, then significant coverage of their lawsuits mentioning that group confers notability on that group.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem: with one exception (a PR blast reprinted in Ambush), none of these are about the organization. Plenty of groups exist primarily for taking legal action, they do not simply become notable because they can file a lawsuit, as any group or person can do that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Mr. Thargor. I am the article writer. I researched the organization and found countless references to the group and what they did during their existence. I've never written an article for Wikipedia before, but I thought with an organization like this that it should not be too difficult for a first article. I understand, Mr. Thargor, that you had noted that the lawsuit the organization was a part of for ten years had good citations, but that you did not believe that the citations existed to show that everything else the organization had done made it notable. When I read your request to delete, I did some research to determine what I needed to do to address your concern. (I was under the mistaken assumption at the time that I could not use pay-to-view articles, which was why I did not include them initially. But when you rightly highlighted, I believe, the fact that the article could use more citations to show what it had done, I knew I would have to find some way to include those fee-based articles). This organization, while it had a high-profile lawsuit that garnered national interest (fighting the sodomy laws in Louisiana), what they were doing on the statewide level (organizing to address anti-gay legislation, working with student groups, lobbying in the legislature) would never attract the same level of interest - this did not necessarily make it any less notable - they would just be written about in the state's paper of record, the Baton Rouge Advocate, as opposed to the New York Times or the Times-Picayune. The group did, though, get press every year from The Advocate. And the eight or so of the pay-to-view articles that I included to address your concern, gave a good and thorough, I believe, telling of what this organization was accomplishing. In its current state, just to summarize, the article has about 9 citations from such sources as the New York Times, CBS News, the New Orleans TImes-Picayune, &c., to reference its sodomy lawsuit - again a high-profile issue that you felt was well cited. For their less high-profile work, although important and regular, of working with the legislature (lobbying, educating, &c.), I cited 8 articles (from the Baton Rouge Advocate, which reported on our legislative activity) which clearly show, in my opinion, what this organization was doing and that it was notable. Is your concern now that I listed these new citations to address your concern, Mr. Thargor, that the Baton Rouge Advocate is not acceptable for citations or that maybe to be notable all of the organization's work needs to be in the New York Times or maybe the Times Picayune. If that is the notability bar that must be reached then it would be impossible to reach that bar. To tell a truth, I think regardless of the fact that their lawsuit got most of the attention, what they were doing day-in and day-out to address the lives of Louisiana's glbt citizens, to me, was the more notable work. I appreciate your input and feedback, Mr. Thargor. I do believe that you've made my article better and I hope you can give me some support to continue doing that. BrianThibodeaux (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to meet GNG, and as the first? or one of the first organizations of its kind in Louisiana would be a remarkable part of history. The only other way this information should be reworked is as a lengthy history of same-sex marriage in the state. Either way it's a keeper. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What sources show it meets the GNG? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Several sources are cited above, I see no suggestion that this article is in any way falsified, nor that anyone actually disputes what we have. What remains is to find some better sources that more fully talk about the group but due to systematic bias against LGBT in the state that still persists, it will be an unhill climb. But a quick search on Google Scholar serves up a few.. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sportfan5000 for your contributions. For the benefit of the folks reviewing this article, I checked the search tool referenced and a few others that Google provides, and discovered 7 more reference sources for my article about this organization - 2 are scholarly books, 1 is an NGLTF Student Organizing Handbook, and 4 are new (unique) Ambush Magazine articles. I hope this contributes in a positive way towards the GNG guidelines. THanks! BrianThibodeaux (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, After 10 years, it will be a history! Bladesmulti (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cullen328's clear explanation of the sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see my response. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not only is the Baton Rouge Advocate the "newspaper of record" for Louisiana's state capital, it's both the official journal of the state (for publication of such things as the Acts of the Legislature, etc.) as well as the daily newspaper of the state's capital city and now also the only daily newspaper for the city of New Orleans. The idea that the lawsuits filed by the organization got press recognition while somehow mysteriously not recognizing the plaintiff therein is silly. CowboyinBRLA —Preceding undated comment added 07:50, 23 December 2013 (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.