Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mainstream gay

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) 00:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream gay[edit]

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

I have huge WP:NPOV concerns about this article. Sourcing is dubious and there seems to be a lot of OR/opinion. In essence, it is an editorial that would be more suited to a magazine. I believe that the presence of this article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. That said, there is probably a topic worth covering here, so I would like to delete the history and start completely from scratch. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There is something in here that could be covered, but not the way it is. The title, while appearing to be a neologism, is actually a synthesis taken from quotes where the terms 'mainstream' and 'gay' are used in the text. Lots of words are used this way, but we wouldn't expect articles on 'red tarmac', 'green tarmac' or 'black tarmac' simply because the terms appear that way in articles on tarmac. The article as a whole is WP:OR and essentially an opinion piece, violating WP:OR as the conjuction only exists in the sources cherry-picked for the article and here, there is nothing to balance it. Sources were selected once the article was challenged, but these are effectively WP:SYNTH of cherry-picked sources to avert criticisms of unsourced WP:OR. This could be covered within an article on gay cultures & subcultures.Mish (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in the original discussion over at the WikiProject, I also agree that this is not a neutral or properly sourced encyclopedia article; it's a synthesis of blogsourced original research expressing an editorial opinion. And as I also pointed out, I even agree with some of it, but that doesn't make it objective. While certainly these issues exist within the gay community, they exist within Western society in general — racism, sexism, classism, looksism, consumerism and the like exist in the queer community because they exist within the larger society that the queer community is a part of, not because these issues are somehow uniquely linked with being gay. Ergo, delete as WP:SOAPBOX. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mixture of WP:NEO and WP:SYNTHESIS. Jminthorne (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NEO Lionelt (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NEO and WP:SYNTHESIS. Can't we just have a CSD category for this? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wow, that's a lot of original research. If this is a topic worthy of an article, then it needs to have much better sourcing relating to the concept itself to demonstrate it. Robofish (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2010 (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.