Talk:Independent Gay Forum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 23 January 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class. |
[edit] feb 2005
NPOV: f you agree with the neo-conservative and conservative wings of the Republican Party, except their position on gay issues then you may find the Independent Gay Forum helpful. Otherwise you find it fitting to call the Independent Gay Forum, the Conservative-Republican Gay Forum. Radiant! 16:40, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I think that the article looks great, and does not have any NPOV. Browned
[edit] notability
Reprinting notability info here, from the AFD.
I expected this to be easy to source considering how often Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch blather about it. But, not so easy. It appears their popularity has tapered as of late, and much of the direct sources of notability have been sucked away by media companies who don't like to host their own content after three months. However, using WP:WEB criterion 3, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster", we have reliable sources that attest this has occurred. First, the New York Press tells us that "The WSJ’s online Opinion Journal went even further, pulling in a piece by gay writer Paul Varnell on the gay conservative site Independent Gay Forum."[1] I don't see an explicit date on that piece, but it says "Pim Fortuyn, who was brutally assassinated last week", so that gives us an idea. Second, the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance are using a citation to a piece from the Independent Gay Forum titled "Punishing gays under Islam" which, according to their citation,[2] was published in the Chicago Free Press on 21 October 2001. Chicago Free Press doesn't have their own Wikipedia article, but they do get their content republished by Lynn Conway at the University of Michigan,[3] so they would pass WP:WEB themselves (although it is never a requirement for any source to be WP:N enough to have its own article to nevertheless be used as a WP:RS). So that's two instances of satisfying WP:WEB criterion 3, and either one of those instances alone would be enough.
Also this coverage in the Indiana Daily Student might be somewhat useful.[4] — coelacan talk — 11:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
