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 Moot. Has been deleted per WP:G12 as a copyright violation. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC) reply

The LGBT Military Index

The LGBT Military Index (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non notable study, only source is the WP:PRIMARY study itself. Notability is not inherited. Wait until it gets coverage in reliable sources Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC) reply

speedy delete its also COI/POV pushing. But yets justhighlighting the one sources' self-proclaimed and non-recognised table i s not notable. Lihaas ( talk) 16:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete as a WP:COPYVIO. We can't copy their list verbatim. Pburka ( talk) 00:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply

  Withdraw !vote, as the copyvio has been removed. Pburka ( talk) 19:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• weak keep/neutral as nominator has received coverage in many sources, but could be considered WP:NOTNEWS. Needs to be kept WP:NPOV tho, and not just regurgitating the study itself from WP:PRIMARY sources. Gaijin42 ( talk) 00:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep, good deal of source coverage and discussion. — Cirt ( talk) 18:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply

I see the page itself was deleted as apparent copyvio. The topic is notable, so it appears if and when a new page is created from scratch without the prior problems, it could exist, hopefully. — Cirt ( talk) 05:44, 15 March 2014 (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.