Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fag stag
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 given the extensive expansion - Nabla (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fag stag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Obscure term even within the gay community, stub article better suited for a dictionary User0529 (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
*Delete From the article, "The phrase 'fag stag', although rare, is beginning to be used more often as homosexuality becomes more readily accepted among straight men." I'm sorry, we don't keep articles about phrases that are rare. Mandsford (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- Comment. We do if they are notable enough. The concern you mention should be fixed through regular editing. Banjeboi 09:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rarely used phrases, by definition, are not notable. If they become notable, then it no longer be said that they are rare. Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:DICT for obscure and unnotable reference for gays. Artene50 (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, much like twink and fruit, fag stag can be much more than a simple dictionary definition. Here's seven books that may be useful, and several articles that may help.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Banjeboi 06:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete What in the world? I've never heard this term before. --Eric (mailbox) 07:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've never heard of it? That seems like a terrible reason to delete an article. Banjeboi 09:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, and as per Mansford. --Eric (mailbox) 21:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've never heard of it? That seems like a terrible reason to delete an article. Banjeboi 09:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Nominator apparently retired within hours of this AfD, I do think they were sincere in their concerns but are unavailable for discussion. Banjeboi 09:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Article rewritten. Banjeboi 02:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator withdrawing nomination - Even though Benjiboi was the only editor to vote keep, (s)he has overhauled the article where it would definitely pass even the pokemon test. I am withdrawing my nomination of this article and recommend speedy keep. (not sure if I am eligible to vote as nominator). User529 (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per WP:HEY, withdrawal of nomination. This article is a paradigm of quality referenced material, not something meriting deletion.Skomorokh 16:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (although a moot point now that the nomination is withdrawn) Bravo on the addition of a ton of sources. Mandsford (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.