Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IraQueer

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn after puffery/promotion removed (non-admin closure) dudhhr_Contribs 19:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IraQueer

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails NORG and does not cite any reliable sources. Probably COI dudhhr_Contribs 20:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. dudhhr_Contribs 20:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. dudhhr_Contribs 20:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. dudhhr_Contribs 20:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creator of the article is HelloIraQueer. Definitely COI editing dudhhr_Contribs 21:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but COI (conflict of interest) editing is no WP:DEL-REASON. Deletion is no substitute for cleanup. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 02:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG with in depth discussion in Washington Post Columbia U News, The Independent ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 09:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I just had a closer look at the article and removed the WP:PUFFERY. I also heavily copyedited (grammar, wordiness, title case -> lower case), and added two reliable sources (The Independent and Washington Post), and also Gay Times (not sure if they qualify as RS). ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 02:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sigcov in both WaPo and The Independent. Easily passes WP:GNG. Mlb96 (talk) 05:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources on page show notability. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2021 (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.