Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Happy Trans


 * 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 delete. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 17:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

We Happy Trans

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of significant coverage in mainstream independent third-party sources. Article has been a low-content stub since its creation in 2014, and I really don't see it ever being anything more. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Lack of significant coverage in mainstream independent third-party sources. 
 * Did you actually search for any? The website is mentioned in several books, including The Massachusetts General Hospital Textbook on Diversity and Cultural Sensitivity in Mental Health &mdash; goethean 18:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. That doesn't count, as it is absolutely trivial coverage. The one result from a text search comes up with "We Happy Trans, a site that shares positive perspectives on being trans-gendered." That's the extent of it. Our notability guidelines require substantial coverage of the web content, not passing mentions. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't count
 * Of course it doesn't. I love these conversations. &mdash; goethean 18:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Fails Notability (websites). I looked at Scholar and Books and there are a few mentions, but in passing, and that's not enough. We are not a web directory/catalog. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Noted in major sources including The New York Times, The New Yorker, and The Guardian, among others. Funcrunch (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails due to lack of significant, reliable, independent secondary coverage, doesn't meet the simplest of WP standards for notability.Cllgbksr (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, the only reason this doesn't come up in scholar and te like is that its fairly recent. Nonetheless when you look at news sources its obvious this organization is notable with mentions by established journalists. Toveswuu hed (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Trivial mentions, which are the only basis for at least two of the keep !votes, do not go to notability. A recentism argument also does not go to notability, but would be a valid point for WP:TOOSOON, which should result in the article either being deleted or moved to draftspace. However, the article has been in existence for over 3 years, so an argument of recentism is a bit disingenuous. Searches turned up trivial mentions, listings and press releases.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:58, 28 April 2017 (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.