Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Free Zone

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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Free Zone[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Gives the impression of being about a concept but is actually about a non-notable event. PROD removed without explanation. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Censorship in the United Kingdom, where this otherwise non-notable event has any significance. Owen× ☎ 17:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to meet any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (events). I'm also not convinced that this topic is notable enough to be merged into another article, and so for that reason I disagree with the proposal to merge this into Censorship in the United Kingdom. —Tommyjb (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable single news story that does not establish the concept or term as being in general use. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article is written neutrally, properly sourced and about a concept that many would seek to research - ergo encyclopedic. As for non notable event - an African-American woman once broke the rules by sitting at the front of a bus, which gave rise to the American Civil Rights Movement and Martin Luther King. Do we on wiki deny the right of unfavourable concepts to exist? This article needs to be kept and developed. Mark^Dask 21:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single event and not especially notable. I agree with the nominator that this article seeks to represent that event as a concept, something which is not supported by the attendant sources. Merging with Censorship in the United Kingdom would best be discussed on the talkpage of that article, rather than being determined via the agency of this discussion. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lovetinkle - read your homepage and love your name - describes every heteroman's favourite place. Mark^Dask 21:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stated by Miss E. Lovetinkle, the article attempts to establish a concept based on a (OK-sourced) single event. Would support merging with Censorship in the United Kingdom. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:08, 23 June 2011 (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.