Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queer people of color

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 of the debate was no consensus (keep). While sympathetic to the OR concerns, it does not invalidate the entire article. The external links seem valid, so the topic is at least discussed at some level outside of Wikipedia. Since the votes are about 70% delete, but no argument other than OR was put forth for deletion, I'm calling this a no-consensus keep. Voters on both sides are encouraged to remove OR from the article, tag it as needing such, or to start a dialog on the article's talk page. Turnstep 01:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queer people of color[edit]

This is original research and reads more like the outline of a paper than an encyclopedia article; even as a list, this would probably end up being largely conjectural and would probably still qualify as original research. Delete. JDoorj a m Talk 00:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gay Nigger Association of America and delete. Erik the Rude 00:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. dbtfz ^talk 01:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Cleanup My first guess was ixnay as well, but Who'd have thunk - 17K ghits, a lot of them on serious edu websites. We have much less notable orgs on WP.Bridesmill 01:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Per Deizio, below, there are actually only 605 unique hits. JDoorj a m Talk 13:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand the objections. Like everything else, the article should be confined to verifiable information; why would it "probably" end up as original research? In no case redirect to the GNAA troll farm; that is a terrible suggestion. Lambiam ^Talk 01:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. I also think that the suggestion to "merge" to GNAA is incorrect and most likely a bad joke.--Jersey Devil 03:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research and redirect to GNAA. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect. This is unrelated to the trolling group. TeKE 03:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought User:Erik the Rude's vote was a joke, but for the record, do not redirect. -- unsigned comment by JDoorjam - DarthVader 03:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Nortelrye 05:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Hetar 06:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 12:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but don't redirect, it has no connection to a trolling group. -- Mithent 12:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is clear evidence that this has no relation to Gay Nigger Association of America and can be expanded on to be more of an "article" if many agree that it resembles an outline.Anarkafrica 15:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC) (17 edits, 8 of which were to this AfD) JDoorj a m Talk 13:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete, ~~no assertion that this is an "organisation" (as others seem to be suggesting), just a term and some OR.~~ per nom, 612 unique g-hits. [1] Deizio 15:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article itself in no way suggests that its topic is an organisation, anymore than, for example, Christians in the Persian Gulf does. You can't vote delete just because an article does not decribe an organisation. "Christians in the Persian Gulf" gets 13 unique Google hits[2], some of which are Wikipedia or Wikiclone entries. So should it be deleted? Come on people, can't we stick to serious arguments? Lambiam^Talk 20:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not this article. This is this article. If you feel the "Christians in the Persian Gulf" article is not notable or falls under some other criteria for deletion, nominate it for deletion. As it stands, this article — an article that, uncited, states that being a "QPOC... intensifies the complications of existing in an oppressed community within an already marginalized community" and that "queer life has become a catalyst for religious and political crossfire worldwide and prohibited as taboo and perverse in social laws in most non Western countries" — sets off my WP:NOR-dar. JDoorjam Talk 20:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't mean to suggest it should be deleted because it's not about an organisation, I was pointing out that some voters seem to think it is an organisation and might not have considered the matter as fully as possible. However, on reflection this is not as big a problem as I thought and I've struck the ambiguity. Btw, threatening to or encouraging others to nominate articles for deletion for no good reason other than "If A is OK, why not B?" tends to rub WP:POINT up the wrong way. Deizio 01:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - My apologies if I misunderstood you, but why did you count the Google hits then? I was not trying to suggest that the Christians in the Persian Gulf should disappear; it served as an illustration that there was something wrong with a criterion I thought I saw being applied. A simple way to establish that a criterion for deletion is wrong, is to show that it also condemns perfectly good articles when applied to them. Or did you mean my reaction to Erik the Uncivil (no offense intended)? That was in the hope it would make him think about what he wrote, as a Gedankenexperiment. Lambiam ^Talk 03:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks very much like original research. But, do not redirect to the GNAA page. --Andy123(talk) 15:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but greatly expand and beef up the citations. This is a noteworthy topic. As for OR, there's enough in the article that is not OR that the article should not be deleted on that ground. Doctor Whom 16:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was joking, by the way. I thought it was such a spectacularly bad joke that no one would take it seriously. This article should be deleted because it may not be entirely obvious who is "queer" and who is a "person of color," and therefore some interpretation (i.e., original research) may come into play. Erik the Rude 16:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By that token you presumably are of the opinion that African Americans in the United States Congress, Black Indians, List of African Americans, List of African American jurists, List of African-American mathematicians, and List of Black Jews should all be deleted. Lambiam^Talk 18:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've got no problem with deleting those entries. Bring them up for a vote, and I'll vote to delete. Erik the Rude 18:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think they should be kept, so for me nominating them for deletion would violate WP:POINT. If you think they should be deleted, why don't you "bring them up" and see what happens? Lambiam ^Talk 20:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
" This article should be deleted because it may not be entirely obvious who is "queer" and who is a "person of color," and therefore some interpretation (i.e., original research) may come into play." - Well then the notables section should be stricken, but you have yet to provide a valid reason as to why the article cannot remain where it is. Anarkafrica 19:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See Lambiam's objection. --YesIAmAnIdiot 19:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete who the hell cares if Denzil Washington (arbitrary example!) is queer or not!? Jcuk 23:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's a very poor example. Think of Bayard Rustin (seasoned activist, advisor and co-organizer to Martin Luther King) and James Baldwin- at a time when the basis for attaining equal rights and justice was not and still isnt so discernable to non whites unlawfulness disfavored and homosexuality a retardation and infiltration to affirming racial identity and manhood to effective warring against the power structure in place.Anarkafrica 17:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete eh? no. -Doc ^ask? 23:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, revise and expand. QPOC exists and to disappear it would be nothing short of bigotry. Morganfitzp 05:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, revise and expand. Obviously there is much more to be said about this, but it's a good start towards describing the experience of a group of people who both experience racism and homophobia/heterosexism. I don't really understand the objection that this is not an objective article, since this is obviously a topic with many viewpoints and isn't likely to be objective no matter who writes it. Jamespkennedy 21:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC) (Two edits, both to this AfD.) JDoorj a m Talk 13:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
I think it should be kept. It is important to be educated about the gay rights of coloured people. It should be revised and updated. Santos Martinez 03:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC) (17 edits, to two articles, his own user page, and this AfD.) JDoorj a m Talk 17:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has at least six other edits, made while – apparently accidentally – not logged in, namely as 64.229.197.163 and as 64.229.198.252, also involving fixing vandalism to a third article. Lambiam ^Talk 18:52, 24 April 2006 (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.