Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay and lesbian retirement

Add links
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 delete without prejudice against recreation. For those who argue that this could be a legitimate topic (and I could see it as such), by all means write an article on the topic. However, we will not keep an essay lying around just because the essay happens to be about a notable subject that could theoretically have an encyclopedic article. As the arguments for keeping the article seem centered around the theoretically possible article rather than the article itself, I find them uncompelling. —Verrai 02:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay and lesbian retirement[edit]

Gay and lesbian retirement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reads like an essay, not an article. No external or intenral links. Orphaned. A few fairly spammy links at the bottom. Can't imagine that even with the best cleanup in the world it would become encyclopeadic. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It doesn't quite read right, but it could, could, possibly be fixed. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 01:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Like Kornfan71, I can possibly imagine an article about the subject with proper sources but I don't think this provides even a base for such an article. Also, WP:OR, right? Pigman 03:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there was just a big NY Times article on it this week (Tues.?), but that doesn't make it an article. JJL 03:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into a Gay & Lesbian article. Tiggerjay 07:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's an essay not an article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rework. LGBT retirement communities are certainly notable, so perhaps the article should be repurposed to discuss such communities. The large number of sources that discuss LGBT retirement issues would appear to satisfy any notability requirements. Eddie's Teddy 03:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sources that talk about LGBT retirement and communities: [1], [2], [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35218]. Given the lack of legal recognition of same-sex unions throughout much of the world, including the US, an article on aging LGBT communities is an incredible benefit to Wikipedia. Eddie's Teddy 03:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. I've listed these under refs for other editors' use. Benjiboi 22:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy for the author, if he requests. Needs explicit referencing. --SmokeyJoe 09:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Retirement communities and information about senior issues are not very well covered in WP and therefore this is a WP:CSB issue, albeit one that is not under-recognized in comparison to the LGBT CSB issue! I can see this being primarily a list-oriented article with some discussion of the issue that cites to the published works. Ideally it would fit into a set of articles about special needs populations for seniors. --lquilter 16:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essay, not an encyclopedical article, US centric. Pavel Vozenilek 23:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly essay in nature.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eddie'sTeddy and Lquilter. Bearian 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a pretty bad article, true, but there are specific issues of concern for the LGBT community in retirement. There are issues of gays in retirement homes predominated by straights, and vice versa (There are tons of mainstream articles recently about this). It needs to be fixed, not deleted:

--David Shankbone 17:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment. I've listed these under refs for other editors' use. Benjiboi 22:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like an essay as expressed above. There is an article to be had under this topic perhaps, but this isn't it. Burntsauce 17:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we delete articles that need to be re-written, or do we re-write them? --David Shankbone 17:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. NYT article establishes that this is a demarcate-able subject matter of importance. Fireplace 17:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Nominator's statement, "Can't imagine that even with the best cleanup in the world it would become encyclopeadic." is way over WP:NPOV. Further, with sources from New York Times, Dallas Morning News, San Francisco Chronicle and WorldNetDaily as already stated above, I find sources from L.A. Times[3], USA Today[4], The Advocate[5], AOL Money & Finance[6], Washington Post[7], ABC News[8], and American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) Magazine[9]. As was said above, we re-write, not delete. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 17:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I take on board the comments about WP:CSB - I am not sure about the lack of LGBT articles on Wikipedia, but there probably are a shortage of articles about senior citizen issues. But I don't think a series of newspaper reports on a topic du jour makes it any more encyclopediac: WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. I've listed these under refs for other editors' use. Benjiboi 22:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. That's 14 refs added so far and no reason to believe that any effort won't quickly produce more. Subject is certainly notable and sources easily found. Article simply needs improving through regular editing per WP:AfD. Benjiboi 22:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though it definitely needs work, the subject matter certainly could make a good encyclopedic article. Right now this article seems more about aging LGBT couples than it does about LGBT retirement, but give it a chance, it was only created a week ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Queerudite (talk • contribs) 02:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allstarecho (talk • contribs) 02:01, 16 October 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gay_and_lesbian_retirement&oldid=1148687915"