Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms for gay in different languages

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 July 7.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 no consensus to delete. +An gr 21:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms for gay in different languages[edit]

Official policy states Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article, which contains very little actual content, is essentially a multilingual dictionary listing of the word gay. The Wiktionary entry already contains this information. Delete Gilliam (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could see an article on the terminology used to describe homosexuality in various societies and cultural contexts. I'm sure there are interesting linguistic issues. Maybe this could be a subpage, but an article listing a word and its translation in various languages seems to violate our guidelines for notability and lists. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and CoM. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. LibStar (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced list of words per WP:WIND. An article on the different literal meanings of slang terms for homosexuals in different languages would be interesting and potentially encyclopaedic, but unless it is discussing scholarly research then it would be original research. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per all the above, although somebody needs to go through the grid here and check that everything included here is in the Wiktionary list of terms used in other languages before it goes - and check which can and can't be verified by sources - and updating the Wiktionary page accordingly. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki any material not already at Wiktionary, per MishMich, and then delete as dictionary definitions. Cnilep (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki any material not already at Wiktionary, per MishMich, and then delete per nom. Yoninah (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete per MishMich. --Alynna (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The wiktionary article has much less information than this and is not in a tablulated format. I came here expecting to !vote delete as a joke article but was surprised how detailed it was. WP may not be a dictionary but it is not uncommon for an encyclopedia to contain short specialized glossaries within articles. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you scrolled down far enough on the Wiktionary page? There are tables of translations divided by sense, as homosexual, typical of homosexual appearance, behaving in a way associated with females etc. They seem to cover much of the same ground as this list. Cnilep (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Positive. The WP version contains literal, and often very colorful, translations, as well as the degree of whether it's a derogatory remark or not which the WD version doesn't. That's in addition to my personal opinion that even the information is available on WD is far more accessible in WP's table. My only suggestion is that our article be renamed to something more clinical than "words for gay". Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If sourced, this could provide a Wiktionary appendix, linked from witk:gay, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'With sources' being the operative word. It can't stay as it is without sources. If it remains as an article, there needs to be some sourced discussion of the etymology of these words as well. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - the "derogatory-ness" is information not included at WD. Just let me join the chorus of voices calling for better sources. Without reliable sources I'm not changing my !vote. Cnilep (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a number of highly derogatory English references, one from Jamaica, and some (like 'brown hatter' originated in the East-End of London) are at least 35 years old. I wasn't clear whether 'bent as a screwdriver' or 'bent as a nine-bob note' were appropriate, as these are more descriptive than simple terms, so I omitted them; 'bent as a nine-bob note' was in circulation around the time of decimalisation in the UK, so must be over 35 years old as well. Of course none are sourced, because this is slang. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring verifiability, including when we discuss slang, is what distinguishes from the Urban Dictionary. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the non-US specific English terms now either have links to Wikipedia articles & other Wiki-xxx locations, secondary sources, or other (less reliable) locations. If the article remains, I will track down better sources for those that need them. But I'm not that interested in this, I was interested to put down the terms I have heard over the past 50 years, and check that they are out there somewhere. The two Jamaican terms have been discussed in the national press here, and I have to try and remember which artcle I was editing here that they turned up on. Similarly for the Scottish term, it featured in 'Trainspotting', so I'll need to go through Google Scholar to check out where that has been discussed in Lit/Queer papers. But, if its going to be deleted, I can't really be arsed. The original authors should have done this. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If moved to wiktionary the advantage of the format (directly comparing terminology tween languages) is lost. Aksel89 (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having played with it, I'm not so sure it has any useful function. Do we need a list of international terms, mostly derogatory, like this? I can see the benefit of listing what the well-sourced 'community' based terms are - but we don't have such exhaustive lists for ethnic groups. My insertions were in part provocative - this is a pretty offensive piece of work really, and has no place in an encyclopedia like this. What next? A list of slurs from around the world aimed at Jews? Negroes? Muslims? Kaffir, Nigger, Kyke, Yid, Paki, pikinini. Sorry, this is unwarranted - and those articles that already include some of that stuff should be expunged as well. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is actually the second nomination. Not sure how to work the template, but see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Term for gay in different languages. Note that it passed with flying colors. Note also that the article as of late 2005 was much tidier and excluded slurs as well as literal words for "homosexual", which means that this article is not WP:HOPELESS. The more "poetic" expressions have encyclopedic value as they shed light on how homosexuality is perceived in different societies. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2009 (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.