Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Left

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Left

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, and appears to be largely comprised of original research and trivial information. A search for sources shows little from RS on this specific group/publication, and much on homosexuals in leftist movements not specific to this organization. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to find sources on "Gay Left" (the organisation/publication) rather than "gay left" (leftist politics amongst LGB people), but there are a few hits. This article is on the general term "gay left", but the section on Gay Marxism has a few paragraphs specifically on the Gay Left collective. I don't have access to this chapter, but it looks like it might be promising. The articleInterrante, Joseph (1978). "Gay Left". Radical History Review. 19. is a review of the journal. There's also this introduction to the journal, but it's at best arguable that it is independent enough to count towards the GNG. Nonetheless, I think there might be just enough to keep this as notable. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found this very helpful in reading about grassroots LGBTQ literature from the 1970s. The "Gay Left's" website does not have as useful information as this page does, and it is useful for researchers. Stephen.wegman (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC) - — Stephen.wegman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given this publication was in existence before the internet it will always be harder to find sources. However those found above are certainly looking promising. AusLondonder (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thinly sourced and lacks reliable independent secondary sourcing, fails to meet the simplest of WP standards to establish notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain (but leaning toward "delete and re-create") - I found sources making some hints of notability - Gay men and the Left in post-war Britain. However, reader's guide says it's part of the "Gay Left Collective" and/or "Gay Marxist Group", a defunct organization. So do other sources: [1][2][3]. Somehow, the Gay Left Collective is more notable than this publication: [4][5]. More on Google Books. George Ho (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a detailed book review in JSTOR about the Gay Left Collective, the book is Gay Men and Left in Post-War Britain - as the publication of a notable group, and for its historical and social significance, I think the subject is notable and could be expanded by someone with a special interest. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per RS. Also, some contributors are notable, which gives it more legitimacy.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[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.