Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queerbaiting

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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queerbaiting[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I see some changes have been made to it since I posted on its talk page. But it still seems like a niche term that only a small group of activists use and isn't notable. The mere existence of the article is also POV, because it was created by said activists to spread influence for the word they created. It also had Unreliable Sources and Third Party issues, as most of the sources were said activists' own blogs and essays.

I believe the only way to make it a neutral article (and provide any noteworthiness) is to re-frame it as a discussion of the activists' opinions on the subject. Alas, the article is still using "Wikipedia's voice" to speak of this niche term as if it were a fact.
Amaroq64 (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG; it's a mainstream, globally-recognized term - there are more sources here: Business Insider, Teen Vogue, BBC News, The Independent, and New Zealand Herald. Orville1974 (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator confuses their disapproval of the concept with non-notability. That queerbaiting is something which reliable sources describe in depth is amply demonstrated by the article's references. That's what's needed for an article. Sandstein 18:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well-sourced and describes a relevant topic. If anything, a skeptic's perspective could be added through additional neutral point of view edits and sourcing. Ericwg (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear fail of WP:BEFORE. Britishfinance (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2019 (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.