| Revision as of 16:00, 9 October 2006 editThryduulf (talk | contribs)Oversighters, Administrators98,871 edits →[]: discussion concluded: Subject deserves an article but conflict of interest problems with original. A gets round this← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:44, 6 September 2022 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,044 editsm Fix linter errors (via WP:JWB) |
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
|- |
|
|- |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <font color="gray"><</font> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <span style="color:gray;"><</span> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <font color="gray">></font> |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <span style="color:gray;">></span> |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
</div> |
|
</div> |
| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
--> |
|
--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
|
|
|
This was deleted because i had already made a page about it a while ago. It was deleted then because no information was found through a google search or anything for it and it didn't have any information about it on the internet at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
Now however, the program is a few vesrions on and has its own website at www.huckool.com/iggy (not sure if google is listing it yet but it is there). |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not advertising because the program is a completely free, harmless, adfree download which means there's apsolutely nothing in it for me (the owner). |
|
|
|
|
|
The page for it was at "Iggy (Program)" |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. {{unsigned|Ahpro}} |
|
|
|
|
|
* Note the discussion in question is ] ] 20:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Keep deleted'''. Independent third-party coverage is needed for the program to be considered notable, and to justify overturning the AfD. Self-published sources are not sufficient. --]<sup>]</sup> 21:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Keep deleted'''. DRV is about process, not content, and the nom is merely asking for the article to be put back because things have changed on his end; that's not a process argument. ] is of course free to create a new ] article whenever he wants as long as it's somehow different (preferably quite a bit different) from the version that was deleted. Of course, if other editors believe the new article isn't somehow different, or otherwise suffers from the same problem(s) that got it brought up on an AfD in the first place, it will probably be ]. (Note to Ahpro: Please take this advice to heart; until your program achieves some sort of notability - like a review in a major computer magazine or something - any recreation of the Iggy article will probably get killed off again.) --] 00:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Sam - ''third-party'' sources are needed. <font face="sans-serif">''']]]'''</font> 00:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC) <small>(edit conflict, yet to read Aaron's, so I can't say "per Aaron" yet.)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
I decided to create the category, and then realized it already existed, but was deleted and blocked from re-creation. There is no discussion on the page, and there are only 4 edits, two of them being the deletion of the article. I think there is a lot more that can be added to this page, as I think the ] article is too sparse as well on who is characterized as a gay icon. If this is one of those topics that has been discussed ad-nausium, let me know so we don't rehash arguements. ] 18:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: The trash icon in Windows XP is pretty gay, isn't it? <b>]</b> 18:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: It's been deleted a number of times - . I don't have the CfD link to hand, but in general people have felt that categories like this are hopelessly subjective, and could as easily be applied to hundreds of people (under highly questionable rationales) or almost no-one. First you might add Joan Armatrading and Quentin Crisp, then Liza Minelli, then Barney, then Brad Pitt. There's no objective criterion under which a subject is or is not a gay icon. You could, of course, have a category "people who have been described as gay icons", and demand a source (or several) from major media or commentators. But by that point the category is worthless - if some commentator describes George Bush as a gay icon, does it go in? Encyclopedias are for something more worthwhile than the nebbish classification of everyone into unedifying categories. ] 18:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: My aproach was to have at least one verifiable reference to a listed person as a "gay icon" to make the list. Any without citation should be considered suspect at a minimum. I think the title "Gay Icons" can still be used, but in the opening paragraph of the article state that these people have been refered to in pop culture or whatever as important to the gay community. I for example would not consider Brad Pitt a gay icon, but if he has been refered to as such, it should be noted. I am just worried that the article "Gay Icon" will get too big if we decide to list every person. it almost should go into a list article like ] but that seems overkill. Are categories only meant to be bullit articles, or can they contain references? ] 19:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I can find this - ] but that (which is more than a year old) is a non-consensus keep. There's clearly (hopefully) been a better discussion about this that google can't find. ] 19:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Comment''' This seems to have been deleted as "dead cat" without CfD (at least I couldn't find one in the April/May CfD archives) and then repeatedly redeleted as G4, which would of course be out of process. On the other hand protection doesn't seem to work here since the two articles listed and categorized properly. Can anyone shed light on this? ~ ] 18:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*I'd be willing to bet that it was deleted as a recreation of ], which was deleted with extreme prejudice ]. Thing is, this category has been to CFD on ] ] ]. For all of that, '''leave it dead'''. Nobody has managed to define "gay icon" in a concrete way, to the point where people can't even agree if it's an icon who is gay or someone who is an icon to gays or someone who is an iconic homosexual, nevermind the useless edit wars in various articles (the category has expanded to the point where it includes every sex symbol ever plus numerous silly inclusions at various points). - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 19:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Fixed that third link for you. Anyhoo, <s>'''Overturn, relist at CfD'''. I don't see any consensus to delete in those year-old CfD's. ~ ] 19:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)</s> '''Endorse deletion''' per ]'s find. ~ ] 19:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I looked at most of the comments on the talk pages and the concensus for delete is that the list will grow and grow and grow. I agree that it will, so I think a simple coment to editors that the article should only be included in the category if the article specifically mentions the person as a gay icon, or influence on gay culture. That way, Brad Pitt would not appear in the category because he would not have an uncited statemnt like "Many gay people love Brad Pitt" in his article for very long, but clearly Liza, Madonna, and Cher would definitely make the cut. ] 19:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Leave dead''' per Middenface and Man in Black. The category fails objectivity on its face. We don't have ] because we've found "at least one verifiable reference" where someone has said, "Hey, I think that's a town in North Dakota!" We have it because all the cities and towns in it are unquestionably cities and towns in North Dakota. By the way, ] is right: I bet I could get ] to call George W. Bush a "gay icon". --] 00:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Keep Deleted''' What kind of non-ridiculous argument can be made for objective criteria for this category? ] 01:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Delete''': it's been nominated over and over and over again: |
|
|
::] August 12, 2004 and October 17, 2004 |
|
|
:: No consensus |
|
|
:: No consensus |
|
|
:: No consensus |
|
|
:: Delete |
|
|
:: Speedy delete as recreation |
|
|
::Those are the only ones I've found. --] 02:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|