Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Bi Lesbian Forum

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 speedy delete; meets WP:CSD.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 10:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Bi Lesbian Forum

Prod removed questionably by anon IP here, so AFDing. Delete per my original prod: non-notable site. 3 ghits. ^{[Check Google hits]} (|-- UlTiMuS 03:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Gay Bi Lesbian Forum article should not be removed. It is a growing site and has a good reputation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .

• So then which Wikipedia policy do you claim supports it staying here? (|-- UlTiMuS 03:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Who says you have the right to remove an article, which is FULLY accurate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .

• The hundreds of people who wrote WP:WEB. The concern is notability, not accuracy. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• So, just because you only recieved 3 hits from google when you searched for our site, you have the right to mark the article for deletion? That is not what the internet is about. You are not being responsible when you mark things for deletion. You didnt even look at the fact that we are a site that is still growing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .

• If you are a site that is still growing, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. WP articles are reserved for notable, well established subjects, not growing ones. That's just how it is. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Well I have read the deletion policies and no where does it say that an article needs to be removed because a user feels it isn't notable. You're biased because our site is for gay, bi, and lesbian people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .
• It's a factual article, it's not absurd, it's not biased, it's there for anyone that's interested in it. It's not a joke, and it's not in any way misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .

• Delete because I'm biased against gay, bi and lesbian people. That, of course, could be the only reason. It couldn't be at all because this is a nn site and its proponent is trying to explain to us what our policies should be even though he/she doesn't seem to understand them. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is kind of funny, because I'm not "straight", so theoretically I should support this article as staying, but on WP you have to throw your biases away and it just doesn't meet the notability criteria. I don't think you read them at all if you still think it does, Kshoaf. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Have you ever read the deletion policies? go here and read them... [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .

• Oh, Jesus, another one of these deletion discussions: "I had no idea you actually had rules about what gets kept and what doesn't, and I resent it very much that you actually try to enforce them." Plus the homophobia angle (which is ridiculous, as these people can attest).
  Read WP:WEB. According to Alexa (which does have its limitations as a measure of popularity, we're aware), you're not even in the top 100,000 sites. I know the page says that's not reliable, but let's face it if you were really a high-traffic site you'd probably be here already.
  Now, within the criteria , and considering that Wikipedia already has a few articles on gay websites, can you tell us and show sources to prove that your site is notable? Has it been the subject of media coverage? Is it run by someone notable? Does its content get reproduced elsewhere? Show us. Daniel Case 03:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Daniel Case Amp 03:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• well let me ask you this... why does an article subject have to be popular in order to be listed on Wikipedia? It makes no sense. This is an online encyclopedia, which is supposed to be about ANY and ALL topics... GBL is a topic. Heck, Ive seen much worse on here. So, what is the point of marking it for deletion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .

• This is an online encyclopedia, which is supposed to be about ANY and ALL topics; You're dead, dead wrong. See WP:NOT. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Umm, no I am not wrong because it says on the logo that it IS an encyclopedia... and where is it?! ONLINE! DUH! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .

• There's really no point to continue this discussion, seriously. Good day. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You are exactly right and if it is deleted, it will be back... everytime. so, mark for deletion all you want —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .

• That's why there is a blocking policy in place. Threatening to vandalize really doesn't go very far here. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia isn't what you were being called wrong about, it was the second half of your statement. BigHaz 04:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can win this one....though justin's idea IS worth a shot but perhaps the good folk of wikipedia should be more understanding and less rude to people who are simply trying to make an article—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .

Also regarding the idea of creating the article every time it is deleted won't work because pages can be proetect against recreation if you try that. Its not going to work and if a page was a simple recration it would be speedy deleted much faster than this. Also for a bit of advice accusing people who are deleting an article that viloates Wikipedia rules of being rude will not help you case. --Edgelord 05:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no verifiability from reliable sources that this site meets WP:WEB; WP:WING applies. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per a variety of Wikipedia policies. WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:WEB, WP:NOTE, and various precidents, including the one that this links to. Daniel.Bryant 05:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and User:Daniel.Bryant/GBLF can be used if they re-create it. Daniel.Bryant 06:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Daniel Case and above. So far I've had a twelve-year old DBZ fan yell at me for deleting some sort of fanfic, an Irish college grad yell at me for "American bias," and a 63-year-old stats prof yell at me for being a misogynist. The common theme? None of them actually read the site policies. --Wafulz 07:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Protect and end this nonsense, please. Danny Lilithborne 09:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Danny says, let's get this deleted and stop the stupidity. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN website that clearly fails WP:WEB, only 7 unique ghits. --IslaySolomon 11:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, then Protect. Valrith 12:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Mecanismo | Talk 16:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per many of the above stated reasons. -- Whpq 19:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nuttah68 20:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Zoel M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 21:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable site. WP is for stuff that is already notable, not to help them become notable. TJ Spyke 21:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. RFerreira 08:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per all of the above. Ryūlóng 10:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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.