Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Deletion/Archive 1

Archive 1

October 7 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Heterosexualization

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Heterosexualization
• Articles for deletion/Heterosexualization (2nd nomination)

Heterosexualization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An earlier version of this was nominated for deletion on August 9. The article claims that "Heterosexualization" has a specific meaning linked to the Westernization of non-Western cultures. This concept seems to unique the source used, which was determined to be unreliable by the Reliable Sources board some months ago. (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_10#Masculinity_for_Boys). Google scholar reveals that a significant number of articles do use the word "heterosexualization", but most seem to use it to mean nothing more than "removing homosexuality" [1]. For example an article on lesbians in mainstream cinema discusses the fact that most "lesbian" scenes are not designed to show actual lesbian life, but to appeal to heterosexuals in the audience. Though the word appears in a few article titles, it does not seem to be a significant concept in its own right. I don't really think there is enough there to justify an article. The definition used in the article - which is presented as undisputed fact - seems to be unique to user:Masculinity's source, which has already been deemed unreliable by the community. Paul B (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete again. The first afd was closed as userify, and the article is different, but no better now. DGG (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Aleta ^Sing 02:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• delete. If the word exists, it can be defined in wiktionary. Without sources showing the concept is discussed (using this term), it is non-notable.Yobmod (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Aleta ^Sing 18:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Comment: I'm not sure what to do with this. It is not acceptable as it is, however. At least some of it is WP:OR, such as saying heterosexualization exerts pressure on boys, and then backing it up with an anecdote of someone who had pressures exerted on him. Aleta ^Sing 18:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Masculinity has now tried to resolve the problem by simply googling the word "heterosexualization" and stuffing the page with pseudo-footnotes to create the impression that these support his initial definition, which they palpably do not since many of them are unreliable and others are presented with elaborate misleading glosses by the editor. This is obvious intellectual imposture - the epitome of WP:SYN. It's just the sort of thing that Wikipedia should zap on sight. Paul B (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Aleta, whatever is decided about this page, Wikipedia's rules specifically say that summariziing a valid research from a reliable source is not original research nor POV. The example of Troben is quoted only to give a very specific example. The said research from Denmark is full of accounts of boys undergoing the pressure to be heterosexual, both by ridiculing and disowning their sexual feelings for boys and by faking up sexual need for women. Please have a cursory look at the research before you decide about that. Besides I have given four different sources, including additional fifth sixth and seventh sources within the research from Denmark, which talks about this pressure specifically (I'll quote: Görlich & Kirkegaard emphasize that to be a real boy one has to live up to a series of principles on masculinity (See also Søndergaard 1996; Demant & Klinge-Christensen 2004). One of those principles is to choose and direct your heterosexual desire towards girls). Besides, I've now qualified the paragraph with, "According to some research available", which should address the reservations about the said paragraph. (Masculinity (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

You are aware that Denmark is not a "non-Western" country, so it has nothing to do with your definitional claims? All that this evidence proves is that boys feel pressure to be "normal" according to the expectations of their society. This isn't news, and it sure is not evidence for the claims that the article makes. Paul B (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing this page with non-western sexuality... this is about heterosexualization... Western spaces were heterosexualized in the last 50 years, while non-westernized societies are being heterosexualized right now.(Masculinity (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Oh please. Read your own article. Read the first sentence. The feelings of young Torben are in modern Denmark, not the Denmark of more than 50 years ago, and the meaning of the term "heterosexualized spaces" in the article is almost totally unrelated to your definition. It has nothing whatever to do with a process happening in "non-westernized societies", and I suspect you know it.Paul B (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Point well taken. I have deleted the word "non-western" from the first sentence and included the sentence, "most parts of the west are already heterosexualized" in the paragraph. The focus here is heterosexualization, and while Denmark is a heterosexualized society, the non-west is going through heterosexualization. The text for which the reference has been given, talks about the characteristics of a heterosexualized society.(Masculinity (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

• Delete per nom. And a warning to the deliberately misleading pseudo-footnote stuffer. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Heteronormativity and be done with it. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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.

CfD nomination of Category:LGBT Hare Krishnas

Category:LGBT Hare Krishnas has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

CfD nomination of Category:Conversion_therapy

Category:Conversion_therapy has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

August 11 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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.

Drifting (1983 film)

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn, one of two deletes (SWik78) has changed to keep - (non-admin close) --T-rex 04:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Drifting (1983 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion that this passes Wikipedia:Notability_(films), unsourced, no IMDB listing, filmmaker and all involved actors are redlinked. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Changed to keep per this, thanks to whoever found it! Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 19:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP! In terms of LGBT Media and Cinema, Drifting was the first gay-themed moved made in and by Isarelis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Browned (talk • contribs)

Can you provide a reference of that fact? Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And even with that, it still doesn't seem to pass these guidelines Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Of the two references provided, one requires a subscription, and the other, while it is a genuine New York Times article, does little to establish the film's notability. The absence of an IMDB listing should be addressed as well. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The NYT review is a good source, and it's highly unlikely that they were the only newspaper to review the film. For the record, it is listed at IMDB: [2]. Zagalejo^^^ 19:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for adding it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It was already there, actually. Here's another review (though I can't access the whole thing): [3]. Zagalejo^^^ 19:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Here's Variety: [4]. Zagalejo^^^ 19:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

****Sorry, but what does this link prove? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, I should have looked a little closer. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete changed to Keep (see below) IMDB listing does little to help establish notability. The film was released in only one city in the English speaking world in 1983 and has only one critical review listed on IMDB. There are no entries for the film at Box Office Mojo to establish a wide release nor at RottenTomatoes to provide multiple reviews by film critics. There is no indication of the film’s influence on its genre nor inclusion within any national film archive. All in all, the film fails all points of notability listed in Wikipedia:Notability (films). SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Reviews in the New York Times and the Phildelphia Inquirer are enough to establish notability. 23skidoo (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

*Keep. Again, this was the first Israeli gay-themed film. Aside from the several reviews of the film in the straight and gay press, it was also talked about in the book titled, "Arab And Jews Wounded Spirits In A Promised Land" By David K. Shipler. It does have an Internet Movie Database Entry, for its Hebrew title. At least one of the actors was fairly notable in Israel. User: Browned.

• Strong, swift & speedy keep. Notability is proven by the sources provided above (not least the NY Times), and I've found aditional coverage in the Bright Lights Film Journal. A landmark film in Arab-Israeli gay cinema for which we should plainly have an article, by a notable director who would easily meet WP:BIO should someone care to write an article for him too. PC78 (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Please note that Wikipedia:Speedy keep does not apply here. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. PC78 (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per this link provided by PC78. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notabilty has been established. Do suggest further sorcing, but it passes. Schmidt (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Proved notability, needs cleanup however. Ndenison ^talk 21:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A theatrically released film is notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

CfD nomination of Category:LGBT people from Great Britain

Category:LGBT people from Great Britain has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

August 1 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_1#Fictional_trans

CfD nomination of Category:Modern pederasty

Category:Modern pederasty has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

July 24 (AfD, CfD, TfD, MfD)

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 (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

John McMullen (broadcaster)

John McMullen (broadcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails to establish the notability of this broadcaster. Lacks verifiable 3rd party references. Rtphokie (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. SSBohio 19:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —SSBohio 19:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per extensive prior discussion at its talk page. He's notable. The article explains his notability, which exists as a quality distinct from that of its sources. Would the article be better with more sources? Of course! But, that is a call to write a better article, not to delete what's already here. It's a stub: improve it, don't delete it. --SSBohio 19:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Notability is not established via a discussion on the article's talk page, it's established with verifiable 3rd party references of which this article has none.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Did I say that the talk page discussion established notability? No, I didn't. I'm not going to refute straw man arguments. --SSBohio 19:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Article sourcing has been improved. The information was trivially easy to find. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not delete one, {{sofixit}}. --SSBohio 21:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Remember, it's the responsibility of the editor who adds the information to properly source it. Others are always welcome to improve the articles but any unsourced information can be removed. This is especially true of biographies. I chose the AFD route instead since there were no references.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Remember, that blaming problems on a previous editor does not provide you with blanket absolution for excising what could be fixed. The sourcing I added took me a few minutes' Googling to find. {{Sofixit}}, already. It makes me heartsick that fixable issues are used to excuse deletionist ideology. Just because it's easier to destroy than to create doesn't make destruction a beneficial activity. If you spent as much time improving the batch of articles you nominated yestedrday as you've spent arguing for their destruction, we'd have a better encyclopedia. That is the goal of this project. If, in your opinion, WP:BURDEN stands in the way of your improving the encyclopedia, then you should ignore it. It's no excuse. --SSBohio 13:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
      • The nominator may not be aware of Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, which states: Before nominating an article for AFD... first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself... You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Sirius OutQ. Mandsford (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • How would that cover his prior radio work? --SSBohio 21:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment all those references to 'JohnMcmullen.com' are primary sources. Aren't there references to those awards and other items available somewhere other than the Mullen's website?--Rtphokie (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The article asserts notability via his media coverage and award-winning work. This notability is, in part, sourced to the subject of the biography. Ant that's your issue with it? Some items have, indeed, been multiply sourced, despite your claim that they have not.
    The article says that John McMullen won a GLAAD Media Award, itself an uncontroversial assertion; Such an assertion can be sourced to the subject's own biography. In this case, however, the assertion is also sourced to GLAAD, the organization giving the award.
    The article asserts that McMullen was covered in an article in The Advocate. That is backed up by both McMullen & by a citation to a copy of the article. Or are you challenging those sources, as well? What motivates your animus toward this biographical subject that you would challenge all these sourced statements? --SSBohio 13:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ssbohio, you are being overly aggressive, there is no need for assumptions of bad faith. Also, you could take on board some of the constructive criticism, and in future ensure that articles, especially biographies of living persons, have adequate third party sources. PhilKnight (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made no assumption of bad faith; I question the nominator's judgment in this matter and his/her interpretation of WP:N, not the he/she acted in good faith. For that matter, ascribing aggeression to me could be an assumption of bad faith, as well. WP:BLP seems to accept self-published sources for uncontroversial claims, as does WP:RS. Even leaving all of that aside, improving the article's references was a trivial exercise for me, and, I suspect, for you, as well. What's wrong with expecting someone who argues for deleting an article to at least give passing attention to fixing its problems instead? Mzoli's was improved rather than deleted, but it shouldn't take Jimbo Wales to make that happen. We've given carte blanche to deletionism for far too long without expecting better from its advocates. --SSBohio 14:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Theres nothing wrong with it, it just needs cleanup. Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 22:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up - there is just enough overall coverage. Agree with Rtphokie's comments; editors creating biographies of living persons should include third-party sources. PhilKnight (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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.