Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:44, 14 February 2013

13 February 2013

Heterophobia

Heterophobia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page faced persecution of multiple types. First all the references were removed, then people complained that there were no references then it was deleted. Also, the deletion of this page shows the extreme bias on wikipedia and the fact that both sides of the coin isn't shown. 3abos (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• As closer Happy to have this reviewed. Please note that the nominator has not attempted to discuss the matter with me prior to listing (step 1), but did notify me of the DRV. It's my view that this was a completely transparent case of SNOW. --j⚛e decker 23:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse - Please let's not waste time at DRV reviewing the homophobic antics of a disruptive user. AN encyclopedia is not a platform to promote one's fringe, anti-gay points of view; we all know that, that's why this trashy article was swiftly deleted. Tarc (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• As nominator and the one who directed 3abos to this board, I reiterate my point that I don't think this is the best way to go about it, and I once again encourage 3abos to avoid editing tendentiously. Nonetheless, I concur with Joe that transparency is good, and welcome a review of the AfD. To wit: The only place where I could see any grounds to object is that the two speedy deletion requests were both declined by administrators who went on to be involved otherwise: Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) declining G4 and going on to !vote for deletion, and Bbb23 (talk · contribs) declining G10 and blocking 3abos for edit warring. However, those seem to me to fall solidly under the "purely administrative role" exemption to WP:INVOLVED, and even if they didn't, I don't see how they'd matter, since in both cases one action benefited 3abos and the other did not. Therefore, I can see no grounds for procedural overturn of the AfD. — PinkAmpers& 00:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Speaking only for myself, I responded to a report at WP:ANEW. While reviewing the report, I made certain edits to the article. I redirected it and then self-reverted once I realized that part of the battle in the article was over whether it should be redirected. Then, I removed the G10 because I didn't think it applied (still don't, although I'm open to being convinced otherwise). Then, I blocked the editor based on an obvious case of edit-warring. I don't see how any of this makes me "involved"; it was just part of my administrative review of the report. I was not in a content dispute with the editor before taking any action or, for that matter, afterwards.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• As i said, I agree with you. Just thought it would be best to address any possible procedural complaints preemptively. I'll shut up now. :P — PinkAmpers& 00:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse, hard to see how anyone could make a determination different than what was made. Insomesia (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse. There was no way this discussion was going to have any other result - the closer fairly evaluated the consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn or allow recreation with new content. Highly outside of process closure. The article had some valid sources that were removed at the time of nomination. In addition, I found additional sources that use the term: and and I think this article also covers the subject. It obviously shouldn't exist in the format 3abos left it in, but the subject is notable and deserving of an article. The section under Homophobia is a good start.--v/r - TP 03:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Could you explain what was out of process? Looked like a reasonable WP:SNOW to me. Hobit (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • The article was butchered 10 minutes after being nominated for deletion including the removal of this source which I think actually supports the article subject. The delete !votes give n choppage o appearance that they were aware of this.--v/r - TP 04:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
      • That is serious, and if there was such a choppage, I would be surprised if many editors caught it. I did not. Perhaps someone should restore temporarily so we can dissect this? (You'll forgive me, I'm sure, for not pushing buttons around this article while the DRV is active.) For what it's worth, it's my view that the consensus was for deletion of the content, not the topic, most participants focusing on terms like "attack" and "unsalvagable bias". As a result, if you want to take a stab at an article there, I don't see that this close bars that. --j⚛e decker 05:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
        • agree the article was absolutely demolished as soon as i created it. this is another source that was removed ] 3abos (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion SNOW applied as far as I can see. That said, if an editor in good standing wants to create an article that meets our sourcing requirements, we should let them. Hobit (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Overturn I do not see how this article is "anti-gay" it is not anti-gay(happy) or anti-sad it is neutral. It had valid academic sources that got removed from people with their own POVs 3abos (talk)

  You are bright enough to understand that words can have more than one meaning, yes? Why do you continue to trivialize the subject matter at hand by referring to "gay" in the "synonymous with happy" manner, rather than by the "synonymous with homosexuality" definition? Do you think you're being clever? Because trust me, bro, you ain't. Tarc (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  I do this to make a point. The dictionaries define it as happy. The word "gay" was coined by the media to refer to homosexuals. The media is influential enough to make words up and change the meaning. just like the words "homophobia" was made up and more recently "heterophobia". Nevertheless the latter is become more in use day-by-day by media and journalists. Isn't it fair that there be a neutral article on wikipedia for it? 3abos (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral I was going to say overturn per the information offered by TParis, but given the comment directly above mine, I don't trust an article written by 3abos. If it's a legitimate topic and someone else wants to write the article, let them do so. Ryan Vesey 05:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Alan O'Connor (closed)