Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay History Project

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gay History Project

Contested PROD. Notability asserted but not backed by reliable sources. Google search of "Gay Project" and "Clevesy" returns nothng. Other similarly named projects exist, but are not affiliated with this one. Seems to be designed to promote an iPhone app. Wperdue (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I google searched him another site came up showing his app. It did only just come out and it is the first and only of its kind and is spreading the word on gay rights. I say leave the article up. If you do search gay history on the app store his is the only one truly spreading awareness and not social networking or photos of half naked men. Also, you have to know how to use google properly if you are looking something up that is brand new and hasn't been out long enough for crawlers to pick it up. For example searching "gay history project john clevesy" instead of each on their own does bring up a few websites. The website i found first was at: http://www.apptism.com/apps/lgbt-history-project which is neither of the sources the writer provided but still seems like a reliable source. And another at http://148apps.com/app/318764084. Another at http://appshopper.com/education/lgbt-history-project and so on... It appears that the project was originally called LGBT History Project which may have also put a snag in your searching... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.220.246 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Lacks reliable sources for notability or verification. Drawn Some (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~If the article is deleted, its redirect at Gay history should also be deleted.~~ Scratch that, he just retargeted the redirect to his new article. I've reverted as it was a redirect created in 2006 pointing to LGBT history. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it on Wikipedia Searching Gay History in the app store verifies its notability as it is the only Gay History app in there -out of over a million apps on there this is the only one of its kind making it notable- which is largely what this article discusses. All you need to do to verify that is search the iTunes store and see it for yourself. Also googling Gay History App returns no additional apps on the subject. The iTunes store search result has been added as a source since a first hand experience is the most reliable resource you can find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.220.246 (talk • contribs)

You should read WP:VERIFY, WP:NN and finally WP:OR. Until you can provide reliable, verifiable third party sources that speak to the notability of this application, the article can't be kept. That's our rules. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 04:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, no reliable sources, vio of WP:OR. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 04:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete Sorry but looking on the itunes store with your own eyes and seeing that there is only one Gay History App on there is not an original thought, or any other violation of the WP:OR. Because any user can go see these search results for themselves when clicking the provided link to the iTunes store, they can see that it is literally the ONLY app focused on gay history. Since when is Apple not creditable with their information and why is a (poorly executed) google search permissible as research to take down the article but actual raw data (showing any and all apps that come up in a search for gay history) which verifies what the article says is not enough evidence to leave the article up? Also, some of the information is coming from the App itself; it is a published non-fictional work and therefore serves as additional, reliable, unoriginal thought straight from the creator of the app himself. NO ADDITIONAL RESEARCH is needed outside of the links provided as sources to this article therefore it should remain on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.220.246 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, I've indented your comment because it made it look as if you !voted twice. Secondly, you have still not provided any reliable and verifiable third-party sources for why this application is notable. Until you do, the article will be deleted. Also, when you post comments here or anywhere else, please place ~~~~ at the end of your comment so that it will automatically sign your comment. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 05:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR Niteshift36 (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacking in reliable source coverage for verification of notability. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Right now it lacks verifiable notability. If it is the first of its kind or otherwise groundbreaking then we can presume it will be covered by sources in the future. It should be recreated when that happens and an article can be written to fit.--Talain (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the multiple independent reliable sources required by the notability policy. As said above, it can be recreated at some later date if such sources ever become available. -- The Anome (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genia Stevens (Host of online lesbian and gay radio show SistersTalk Radio. Founder of social network GayWallet.com.) has written about and confirmed the Gay History Project as the first of its kind. Her article from SiterTalk has been used as a source.

The source that you added is a blog and, therefore, not a reliable source. Please read the linked section for what constitutes a good source. I would not like to see you spending time and energy finding unreliable sources if others that are better exist. I hope this was helpful. Wperdue (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

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.