Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stonewall Democrats of Arizona


 * 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 merge to Stonewall Democrats.  MBisanz  talk 22:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Stonewall Democrats of Arizona

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

State-level chapter of a national organization, featuring neither enough substance nor enough reliable sourcing to make it notable in its own right as a separate standalone topic from the parent org. Delete, or redirect to National Stonewall Democrats. Bearcat (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Stonewall Democrats of Arizona are allied with National Stonewall however they are an entirely separate organization with neither answerable to the other. They do NOT have a "parent org". If you delete this page then you MUST delete all regional Equality pages such as Equality Arizona, Equality California, Equality Florida & etc.Robert Rowlkey (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS regarding your second sentence. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused. I see that National Stonewall Democrats does mention state chapters, but at the same time this organization's official webpage states that it is an "autonomous organization" with no ties to any national organization. Of course, reliable sourcing still applies.. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * My own rule of thumb for "multiple" sources is a minimum of three, and the article has that already. Again, despite a vague claim in the national Stonewall org article that all state organizations are chapters I don't see any indication of that here, and why WP:BRANCH should apply. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh and just to quote, in addition to the declaration that this is a completely "autonomous organization", the official site also states that they are registered "with the federal government as a 527 organization" and can "receive donations from any American citizen." So the nomination rationale that this is but a local chapter should be disregarded. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

*Redirect and Merge into National Stonewall Democrats. this newly created stub is less well sourced than it looks. The first source, in a real daily paper, the Arizona Daily Star begins: "A Tucson group is trying to revive the Stonewall Democrats of Arizona..." and that's the best source on the page. I didn't read the source #2, in something called Echo Magazine because it required clicking through 66 pages. I am unfamiliar with observerweekly.com, source #3, a source that contains informative material on this fledgling political group. The last 2 sources are less impressive. This is very little material to base an article on, but the real problem is that this may be all that exists. At least, I did search and found nothing beyond what is already on the page. On the other hand, Stonewall Democrats is something of a brand. Other regional Stonewall groups have External Links on the National Stonewall Democrats page. I suggest that the material here be moved to a state section for Arizona on the National Stonewall Democrats page (which is in need of updating), which is a very short page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Enough RS coverage to satisfy WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I updated Stonewall Democrats page, making it into a good home for a redirect. Went to ping page creator, discovered that he has been blocked. It mar or may not be relevant that my searches found other Stonewall Clubs that are far more active, or, at least, get more more press than this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Stonewall Democrats, per E.M.Gregory.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:09, 20 November 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.