Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Gay stereotyping - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tonytypoon (talk | contribs) at 19:45, 27 December 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:45, 27 December 2006 by Tonytypoon (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Gay stereotyping

Gay_stereotyping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)�-- (View AfD)

Gay stereotyping is hardly a valid article for wikipedia. It consists of only a few very vague sentences, which amount to not everyone who has "gay traits" (with no explanation or example of what gay traits are) is gay. Also wikipedia doesn't seem to have any articles for any other races such as Scottish, Norse, Irish, Frech, or Italian. Chooserr 04:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I meant groups not races. Chooserr 08:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • merge with Homophobia and delete. The article is a stub, and says it is part of homophobia. Would be better to put the info there. Jeffpw 13:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - at the moment it's an okay stub - but needs more sources. Though I was leaning towards merge as well, let's see what develops here - so long as there are highly reputable sources presented in the future. Smeelgova 13:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep the reason that there is only a few sentence is because I wanted to remove the crap content immediately but didn't have time to expand the article. It is probably going to be the next LGBT collaboration projects so why not wait and see what can be done with it. Koweja 15:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I was reading it and asked myself WTF? This is a dicdef - did someone delete all the content? Turns out yes, yes they did. Seems like a reasonable article idea, but right now it's a dicdef and an unsourced assertion that gay stereotyping come from homophobia (a dubious assertion, given how frequenty non-homophobes stereotype gays as well) and is completeley unreferenced. I hope someone will bring it up in quality. That said, I can't bring myself to argue delete, given the obvious worthwhileness of the subject. WilyD 15:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Look at the history; there used to be a lot more information here. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand per above. VegaDark 22:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Tonytypoon 19:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: It does appear that someone stubbed this, whether it should be deleted, restored or expanded I have no idea. Wintermut3 04:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. As Koweja explained, the content which was unsourced and POV was removed pending the article being rewritten from the ground up if it passes this AfD. The question here is whether there should be an article on Gay stereotyping (that is neutral, well referenced etc.) or not on Misplaced Pages. - WJBscribe  04:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Expansion on WJBscribe's comment You can see the page before I stubbed it here. I was attempting to clean it up a bit but then realized that by the time it became a decent article nothing of the original would remain, so I just trashed it. Koweja 04:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
        • comment': Thanks for clearing that up Koweja, looking at both versions I have to agree with you that it needed stubbing and a fresh start, the only issue is whether that can turn into something encyclopedic I guess Wintermut3 08:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep BrenDJ 17:08, 16 December 2006 (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.
Categories: