Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straight Community

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 delete. →FireFox 17:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straight Community

Nonsense. There is no such thing, and this definition makes an attempt to lump all heterosexuals together. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nonsense/OR. Durova 03:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Weak keep per User:JJay. Those sources should be in the article. Durova 08:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Whether or not straight people think there is a "straight community" is POV and irrelevent to whether we should keep the article, as the article is just describing a term "used almost exclusively by the gay community". The question becomes, is that actually true? 41,200 Google results for "straight community" is a start. Now for some substance, it's used quite a bit in well-known gay (New York Blade, Washington Blade, etc.) and even mainstream press (The Independent), with 8 press uses just in recent news articles [1]. I think the use of this phrase and concept are certainly documented. Article might need some work, of course, but that's not a reason to delete. To translate all of this into a soundbite, Keep. --W.marsh 03:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Google "'straight community' -gay" gets you 833 hits -- a lot of them false positives. Quite a drop-off, there. See FCYTravis's comment below as to why an an encyclopedia article adds no value to understanding the phrase. --Calton | Talk 08:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or delete gay community too --Ajdz 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I concur with Ajdz. This article might attract less interest than its counterpart, but it has just as much right to exist. jmd 03:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I think this page has more to do with proving a point than writing an encyclopedia. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 04:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I tend to agree. Which is why I concurred with User:Ajdz when he suggests an alternative to keeping this article is to delete the other one. jmd
• Delete and smack creator with WP:POINT. --Apostrophe 04:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe mention the point in Gay community? - CorbinSimpson 04:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That's possible, too. But this article hasn't even been around for a day... I'd like to see if it would grow to anything before merging it off somewhere, personally. --W.marsh 04:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. What could it grow into? What's to say about the "straight community"? It's everybody who is not "gay". At best this is a dictionary definition; at worst it is a useless term as it refers to almost everyone in the entire world. Comment does any article have a "right" to exist? I find that assertion anthropomorphic and baseless but very amusing. Logophile 04:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment "Anthropomorphic" is a big word I didn't know what it meant until I looked it up. Clearly you didn't either; unless you are implying that straight people are inamimate objects. jmd
    • He's refering the the article itself, not the subject to the article. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry. I'll state it more clearly. People have rights; articles don't have rights. By the way, I am not prejudiced against gay people. This page is called Articles' for deletion, not gay people for deletion. Logophile 01:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
        • It is an issue of great debate in Wikipedia as to whether the right of an article to exist starts at article conception, or only attaches when the article has grown and developed enough, through the nuturing of its editors, into something with true encyclopedic value. Nandesuka 14:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Oh great, gays and abortion in one AfD. I'm thinking of retracting my Delete vote in case people start protesting with 'Deletion Is Murder' signs outside my user page and eventually someone blows up my house. :-) --Last Malthusian 09:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment quoting from the unsourced stub: "there is really no closely knit community as such." That seems like reason enough for deletion. Durova 05:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Many google hits say article needed [2]. -- JJay 05:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete complete nonsense--Aolanonawanabe 05:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a worthy topic and will hopefully be expanded. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 05:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Much as I hate to say it, the links in the article and the google results from JJay convince me that the term is reasonably commonly used. Bikeable 06:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Google says the term is widely used. Flyboy Will 07:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, one of those weird anti-positive-discrimination WP:POINT pages. Like saying there should be an article about White Angus because there's one on Black Angus, or one on Ability etiquette because there's one on Disability etiquette. Foppish! The article itself says there's no closely-knit community. There's millions of google hits for the phrase "Everyone else"; that doesn't mean we need an article on that phrase. It's just a phrase used to describe everyone else by the 'gay community' (which is a neologism in itself). Eliminate pandering to anti-positive-discrimination from Wikipedia - now! Proto t c
• Weak delete. Original version created for POV-pushing. Current revised version says "merely a distinguisher," which to me means it is a dictdef at best. (of course, if it is kept, please move it to properly-capitalized title.) FreplySpang (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, went from being a WP:POINT to a simple dicdef and both non-encyclopaedic. Basically, all this can be is an 'x is the opposite of y' article. --Last Malthusian 15:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I was going to say the exact same thing as Last Malthusian, - squibix 16:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Straight pride and add the paragraph there. -- MisterHand 17:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pointless reversal of Gay Community. —Zazou 18:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. - Pureblade | ^Θ 19:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or possibly merge with straight pride Jcuk 19:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is rediculous --Naha|^(talk) 19:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or at least merge. Per User:Proto --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you were to redirect this then redirect Gay Community to Gay Pride...see how they like it. Chooserr 23:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:POINT. Zoe (216.234.130.130 23:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Comment. Since when does the inclusion or exculsion of an article have to do with whether or not people "like it"? Is it encyclopedic? That's what matters. This is Wiki-pedia. Logophile 01:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Gay community describes a distinct subset of the population. This page doesn't - the ways in which the > 90% of the population described on this page differ from the general population are best discussed on the page about the < 10%. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment, I don't necessarly support the current version as it is, and hope that you will view the talk page where I make my case for my version which gives both definitions and never had the "mundane" link added. My version also seems a bit more neutral in its current state (the one just reverted). Take a peak. Chooserr 04:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment2: Oh and Ben Aveling, my version does label a "distinct subset of the population" not just all straights, but straights that want to participate in the "straight community" and aim to uphold and protect Judeo-Christian values such as Male and Female only Marraiges. Just as not all Gays participate in the Gay Community so to select Straights only participate in the Straight community. Chooserr 04:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I encourage voters -- especially"keep" voters -- to check out Chooserr's versions (like this and this) to see what use he's trying to make of the article space: myself and Theresa Knott tried (separately) to clean it up, but as William Goldman once said about rewriting a bad screenplay, it's like washing garabage. --Calton | Talk 08:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Google doesn't support the idea that "Straight community" is used to label this distinct subset of the population. People who believe that usually term themselves "pro-family" or whatnot. The "straight community" hits I find on Google are all being used by gay organizations to talk about a general gulf in understanding between gays and straights - i.e., "educating the straight community" -"the straight community's views." There's nothing to suggest that people who dislike gays are banding together and calling themselves the "Straight community." FCYTravis 08:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Gay community and include subsection on the use of "straight community" by gay groups. FCYTravis 08:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete A dicdef at best, hijacked as a propaganda vehicle by Chooserr. --Calton | Talk 08:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Chooserr created it, so it's fairer to say that it's a propaganda vehicle hijacked and turned into a dicdef. Half the reason to delete (apart from WP:NOT a dictionary) is that there's no point in people watching this page to make sure it's maintained as a dicdef and Chooserr doesn't revert it back to being a POV vehicle. --Last Malthusian 10:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Point taken. --Calton | Talk 13:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Article is a neologism. Endomion 10:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless author can provide evidence of scholarly investigation into this so-called "community". —Psychonaut 10:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It's WP:POINT and a dicdef! Two, two, two reasons for deletion rolled into one. Nandesuka 14:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for lots of reasons stated above. --SarekOfVulcan 08:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless we want a White People, a Males list, etc. category... Carlossuarez46 22:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, this isn't about whether the group exists, it's about whether the term does and is used signifigantly. --W.marsh 22:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

But remember, W.marsh, terms belong in Wiktionary. Wikipedia is for encyclopedic subjects. Logophile 22:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Only if they can never be expanded beyond a dictionary definition. --W.marsh 22:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Only if they can never be expanded beyond a dictionary definition using the information that is available right now. If this term was in wide use, we could say 'This article can be expanded, so it's a stub'. But it's not, and saying 'This article can be expanded when more people start using this term' is crystal balling. --Last Malthusian 18:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism, bad dicdef, nonsense. JanesDaddy 23:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, per FCYTravis, who actually read some of the google hits, rather than simply counting them. Turns out this article is fiction. I'd like to see a source that there are actually notable groups of people labelling themselves as "pro-straight". "Straight community" is a term used by gays to refer to heterosexuals, not by poor oppressed heterosexuals who need to define a subculture in which they can feel welcome, finally. What a laugh! -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete --Revolución (talk) 04:31, 1 January 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.