Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore public gay parties

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. Mailer Diablo 06:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore public gay parties, Singapore gay literature, Singapore gay art, Singapore gay theatre, Singapore gay films

• Delete as unverifiable original research and indiscriminate. -- Krash (Talk) 21:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Edited to add Singapore gay literature, Singapore gay art, Singapore gay theatre, Singapore gay films. -- Krash (Talk) 21:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, most of content in Singapore gay literature, Singapore gay theatre, and Singapore gay films are verifiable via Internet, and at least part of Singapore gay art as well. I haven't check the others. Did the nominator tried to verify the content? --Vsion (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Per WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics...". I'm not questioning the verifiability of the specific films/plays; they can have their own articles. I maintain that loosely associating them in this fashion is original research. Also, to quote the film article: "...there is to date not a single film entirely produced by Singaporeans in Singapore belonging to this genre." Then why make an article about something that doesn't exist? -- Krash (Talk) 23:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• I hope you understand that Singapore don't have a landscape anywhere close to the Brokeback Mountain. We do have a Bukit Timah Hill, but it is not quite scenic enough for a full-length feature film. --Vsion 16:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Singapore gay literature has 16 references; it is better sourced than most articles. Singapore gay theatre and Singapore gay films seem verifiable. The more recent events mentioned in Singapore gay art are probably verifiable online. According to the Singapore public gay parties article, the 2004 Nations party was mentioned in Time Magazine and the 2005 version was mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald;so, it is sourced and somewhat notable. . Where references are wanting, it looks like they might be added. The films article mentions Bugis Street, a Hong Kong-Singapore co-production about Singaporean transvestites, and Rice Rhapsody about a Singaporean gay divorcée; so the topic of the article exists. I think it is acceptable to make an original compilation of information that is verifiable; that is what most articles are. The ban on original research is directed at unverifiable information. The articles are not indiscriminate collections, though the film article is a bit weak here. Pulling the information together adds informational value. Taken together, the articles give a picture of LGBT culture and life in Singapore, which I find to be an interesting topic. Wuzzy 02:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And I argue contend that, for the most part, all of these articles represent one contributer's viewpoint on the subjects in question. I can't help but think this is some sort of soapbox. -- Krash (Talk) 03:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes that's probably right. I think the one on gay parties should really be deleted because of that. --James 03:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Move public gay parties to Nation(Singapore Gay Party). -Dodo bird 05:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
        • The literature, art and film articles have at least 2 writers. The parties article has only one writer, but was only started in Nov 05. I don't think the fact that an article has only writer makes it a soapbox. It is obvious that the author has an interest in the topic, but that in itself does not make the article a soapbox, not unless the article is argumentative and one-sided. Wuzzy 15:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep everything but delete the gay parties. --James 02:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all and cleanup. --Terence Ong 03:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. *drew 08:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all but the parties Carlossuarez46 03:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete all as unencyclopaedic. Please see WP:WWIN. Stifle 22:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all but the parties Leidiot 14:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all and merge into a single article on gay culture in Singapore Minah 17:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all definitely. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:24, 4 March 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.