| Revision as of 12:44, 6 January 2007 editDaniel (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators75,400 edits →[]: note← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:47, 6 January 2007 edit undoAtomaton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,903 edits speedy keepNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| *'''Speedy Keep''' and warn nominator about being ] to other editors. There is no need for rudeness on WP; if anything, it makes one's arguments look weaker. --] 12:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | *'''Speedy Keep''' and warn nominator about being ] to other editors. There is no need for rudeness on WP; if anything, it makes one's arguments look weaker. --] 12:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **Note that there is a pending discussion about the nominator's behaviour ongoing at ] (just go Ctrl+F for the nominators name, there's a couple of threads). Rather than make a suggestion here which is unlikely to be carried out, you and everyone else is welcome to give their thoughts on this "AfD-spree" matter in an attempt to ] and to move forward. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 12:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | **Note that there is a pending discussion about the nominator's behaviour ongoing at ] (just go Ctrl+F for the nominators name, there's a couple of threads). Rather than make a suggestion here which is unlikely to be carried out, you and everyone else is welcome to give their thoughts on this "AfD-spree" matter in an attempt to ] and to move forward. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 12:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Speedy Keep''': Don't agree with reasons stated for deltion. | |||
| Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting. | |||
Revision as of 12:47, 6 January 2007
Bean queen
Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Query What is the specific violation of WP:V in this case? Navou 04:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Reply - "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable" (from WP:N). Once notability is established through sourcing an article with "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable", a reader can then verify that the article's claims are supported by the sources. As this article stands, there is nothing to verify because no sources are cited to establish its notability. See? CyberAnth 05:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. None of these mass nominations are in good faith. What specifically does this article violate? You copied the same generic shit in every Afd. --- RockMFR 05:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Reply - Might that be because they are all on the same grounds? Also, if you read my comments here, I have quite clearly explained the grounds. CyberAnth
- keep article quality is not a deletion criterion, the article asserts notability, but needs references. Consider tagging for cleanup or sourcing before reaching for the AfD subst. Wintermut3 05:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's rather more than a dic def already, since it's discussing how the term is used, by whom, and how it is received. That's social context; encyclopedic content rather than mere dic def. — coelacan talk — 05:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This scattershot name-every-policy business just won't do. Notability is asserted. Yes, it needs reference but quality of articles is not a ground for deletion whatever your objection to their content. WJBscribe 05:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Reply - It is notable if you consider notable an un-sourced statement that "Bean queen is a term used in the English-speaking gay community to refer to a person" who dates Hispanics. How is that notable? "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable" (from WP:N). Where are the sources? Without them, there is nothing to even verify. Moreover, how is Bean queen not a neologism? "Neologism are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities" (from WP:NEO). All the supposed assertion of notability in the article has done is assert it is a neologism. And WINAD. CyberAnth 05:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I think it might help everyone if you calmed down. Your reason for nomination to which I responded was just a collection of links to policy with no discernible argument, which have cut and pasted from every one of these numerous AfDs. I'm sure you have an important point to make but, instead of presenting your rationale to objecting to the article in the first place, you seem to prefer to respond in an unnecessarily hostile manner to whoever opposes you. WJBscribe 05:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Reply - It is notable if you consider notable an un-sourced statement that "Bean queen is a term used in the English-speaking gay community to refer to a person" who dates Hispanics. How is that notable? "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable" (from WP:N). Where are the sources? Without them, there is nothing to even verify. Moreover, how is Bean queen not a neologism? "Neologism are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities" (from WP:NEO). All the supposed assertion of notability in the article has done is assert it is a neologism. And WINAD. CyberAnth 05:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Copy & paste nom. The concept of a "bean queen" is more than the definition of the term, so WP:WINAD doesn't apply. Notability is established and neologism is denied by its commonplace usage within media and popular culture (~20,000 Google hits). Verifiability is no reason to delete the article, and the prevalence of the concept outside the article denies allegations of original research. None of this information was difficult to come by, and the lack of due diligence in making this nomination concerns me. Are you trying to make a point? --Ssbohio 06:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - keep per discussion, speedy per WP:SNOW. This goes a little farther than being a mere dicdef. If anything, it may be transwiki'd to wiktionary. --Dennisthe2 09:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I have added three sources, one from a "gay" publication, one from a fundamentalist Christian publication, and one from a Spanish language publication (to show that it's used there as well). Hope this takes care of the sources... I am going to add a paragraph about the 'straight' use, as I came across tons of Myspace gals using this word! SkierRMH 09:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment
- http://www.unc.edu/glbtsa/lambda/articles/29/1/attraction.html - only mentions the term (once) as a slang word, does not discuss it, is not sufficient because the term must have been the subject of sources, not merely mentioned in it. WINAD.
- http://www.um.es/tonosdigital/znum10/estudios/O-Navarro.htm - is a glossary of slang terms for homosexuals. Does not discuss bean queen, only mentions it as a slang word. WINAD.
- http://www.antipas.org/books/homo_revolution/hr_gloss.html - again just a glossary, and a source of clearly dubious reliability from a partisan source and thus cannot be used. WINAD.
- Myspace cannot be used as a source in Misplaced Pages. Check the policies.
CyberAnth 11:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. Johntex\ 11:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep and warn nominator about being civil to other editors. There is no need for rudeness on WP; if anything, it makes one's arguments look weaker. --Charlene 12:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Note that there is a pending discussion about the nominator's behaviour ongoing at WP:ANI (just go Ctrl+F for the nominators name, there's a couple of threads). Rather than make a suggestion here which is unlikely to be carried out, you and everyone else is welcome to give their thoughts on this "AfD-spree" matter in an attempt to build concensus and to move forward. Daniel.Bryant 12:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep: Don't agree with reasons stated for deltion.
Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting.
Categories: