Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarcho-homosexualism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)    15:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarcho-homosexualism

This term appears completely non-notable, with not even one google hit. The article is long, however. Perhaps I'm missing something? —Mets501 (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Appears to be WP:BJAODN material. —freak(talk) 22:18, Aug. 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The main editor Joeferret has a history of joke articles (see User talk:Joeferret#Eugene verkhovsky)
  • Anarcho-homosexualism is an underground movement, so its not suprising that Google would miss it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeferret (talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 August 2006
  • Delete - if it's far enough underground for Google to miss, can it ever be verifiable? BigHaz 22:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a single mention in Google. If it's as notable as the article professes it to be, I'd think that people would be talking about it somewhere. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to Keep. Oh wait, I actually did find something. Schumin Web 07:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Not me, but an imitator. I still support delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Not Delete. Is it as far fetched as Anarcha-Feminism or Gynarchy? kodakfilm 22:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.239.17 (talk • contribs)
    • Both of which have extensive Google results. This one comes up completely blank. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't Delete. Seems to me that some of this is legitamate. The publication and musician are real aparently. pokeyman 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.239.17 (talk • contribs)

Striked as IP already voted above.--Andeh 23:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Not Delete. A good search does in fact return 279 results.joeferret 22:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It should also be noted that the comments allegedly posted by "kodakfilm" and "pokeyman" were both actually elected president according to Wikipedia's records. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A movement that's been around for 30+ and gets no Google hits whatsoever? hmmm... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It has 279 Google hits. Get it right.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeferret (talk • contribs)
  • Please also google Kathy Fire, if you need more proof. joeferret
  • Grr you people are stubborn. In addition to the above, also check Myspace groups for Anarcho-homosexualism. Its all there.joeferret
  • Comment Funny how there are three persons here not familiar with conventional AfD jargon delete/keep. Medico80 22:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The existance of someone who creates an album called "Songs of a Lesbian Anarchist" does not indicate the actual presence of a notable movement. HalJor 22:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that Kathy Fire's music was popular I think attests to the fact that the movement exists.joeferret
  • Delete. Unless there are numerous reliable academic/print sources which define this term and attest to its frequent use, this is original thought. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Bucketsofg✐ 23:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't Delete As I'm sure anarcho-homosexuals will agree, just because an academic institution doesn't pay attention to you, and just because the mainstream media shuns you, doesn't mean that a particular movement doesn't exist. joeferret

Striked, you already voted above.--Andeh 23:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - possibly created in response to the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anarcho-monarchism debate. Yomangani 23:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. G-hits: 0 with quotes, 279 without quotes, 0 de-hyphenated without quotes. Sadly, 279 is still not sufficient by most standards of the Google test. Worse, only 130 unique G-hits on that hyphenated, non-quotes search. The best word to describe it would be neologism. Morgan Wick 23:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hence, "This term appears completely non-notable, with not even one google hit" would be completely wrong. Like I said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joeferret (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment Since the term doesn't actually appear anywhere on any of the pages brought up by that unquoted search, yes it is true that there is not even one google hit for this term. You can always prove me wrong by finding a single one of those 279 pages that actually has "anarcho-homosexualism" on it. Fan-1967 23:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And, you're missing the point that your coveted "oh, there aren't ZERO G-hits" is not sufficient justification to keep the article. You are hanging by a thread, my friend. Morgan Wick 23:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Not Delete The Anarcho-homosexualism is not only legitimate but is also a quickly growing movement. Much like the Log Cabin Republicans who advocate homosexuality in the conservative party, these anarcho-homosexuals advocate homosexuality as an important aspect in libertarian-style anarchy. Although sources are important, this is a relatively new grassroots movement and information on the issue is very scarce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.241.240 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 7 August 2006
    • Note: IP's first two edits. I suspect this may be a sock puppet. Morgan Wick 23:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If information on the movement is very scarse, that is a perfect reason to delete this article. —Mets501 (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The amount of sources containing this factual information does not take away from its validity. The reason for the scarcity of information is because people such as those wanting to remove this article always claim that sources must be based on information found in other sources in order to be true. Someone has to initially start the literature on the topic or else that argument will be used for every new topic. Let this article stay as is until new information either invalidates specific information or add additional information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.241.240 (talk • contribs)

  • Wikipedia is not the place to "start the literature on the topic". See Wikipedia:No original research. We do not keep articles because they may or may not turn out to be notable, in the spirit of not being a crystal ball. Morgan Wick 00:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I did not "start the literature on the topic". The guy who said that was just saying that even though there are few "reliable" sources on the internet (not sure how reliable any source is on the internet anyway), there are other sources, and more information that can be added by users that will demonstrate the credibility of this movement. Joeferret
    • Can you provide us with one Internet source that could be considered somewhat reliable? —Mets501 (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes yes i can. Here's one, another, another,another, and finally this. I hope this proves to the skeptics that this movement does in fact exist.joeferret
  • ... and not one of those sources contains the word "anarcho-homosexualism". In fact, there is nothing to indicate that anyone but you has ever used the word. Fan-1967 02:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No reliable verified evidence that this term/ideology exists (not only are all the sources provided above by joeferret unreliable in themselves (see WP:RS), none of them support the article's specific assertions about the purpose and history of this ideology or the claims that it exists as widely used in discourse). Also - remedial homework assignment for the article's really sloppy use of the word "postmodern", not to mention the ill-use of the words "veritable" and "synthesis". 2500 words on Queer Theory by Monday, please. Bwithh 02:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If you don't like the use of "postmodern", then change it.joeferret
  • Strong Delete 0 google hits, 0 dogpile hits, 0 alexia hits, and 0 newsgroup hits (I covered all the bases here) for "Anarcho-homosexualism". I can not find one credible news article, one credible website, or even one credible Blog that mentions this word. --Bschott 04:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I've never seen anyone identify as an "anarcho-homosexualist". I'm getting no google hits when "anarcho-homosexualism" is put in quotes. I'd say it's OR and a neologism as there does not seem to be any established movement with this name. The term "queer anarchism" does get some hits, which I expected since there is a queer-oriented trend within anarchism (similar in nature to anarcha-feminism). There is even a queer anarchist flag (like the anarcho-syndicalist one but with pink instead of red). I wouldn't be opposed to an article on queer anarchism, but even that would probably be mostly OR since most anarchists would inherently support queer liberation anyway and few anarchists have focused on queer issues specifically. Anyways, most anarchists who do focus on queer issues would use the term queer, not homosexual since homosexual isn't inclusive, which casts further doubt on this article's veracity. The Ungovernable Force 04:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Seriously I think there could be a good article here, about lesbian and gay anarchists/anarchism. However, this article just seems too trolled to have any hope of turning into that.... And, people are right about the "google test" -- there are feminist anarchists, and there are gay/lesbian anarchists, but people commonly call feminist anarchism anarcha-feminism, whereas no one really seems to call homosexual anarchism, anarcho-homosexualism... it seems to be too much a rare/made up term to refer to a real phenomenon. In part, I think (as The Ungovernable Force has well put), lesbian/gay anarchism is (correct me if I'm wrong) most often not sufficiently distinctive in its thought or praxis to need to be described under a specific term, whereas for feminist anarchism there is more distinction of thought/praxis. Anyway, delete this, but hope that someone will one day write a better article, under a better title as well. --SJK 12:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. "Underground movements" that are so deep underground that they've received no attention at all do not belong on Wikipedia. The entire article is also unverifiable. Please publish this somewhere else to "start the literature" - I suggest free website domains such as Freeservers.com or Freewebs.com. Srose (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strange...If I go out and "start the literature" like you say, then the information would be verifiable for use on Wikipedia... so then why isn't it good enough now? The information won't change if I just move it somewhere else... Lets leave the damn article alone and if you people can disprove it, then you can delete it. Its like Popper's philosophy of science: nothing is verifiable anyway, so lets strive to disprove things. joeferret
  • If you go out and "start the literature" that would make no difference. There must be multiple, verifiable, reliable sources. Right now there are zero, but if there were one or two, they wouldn't be sufficient. Fan-1967 19:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You are incorrect. joeferret
  • Incorrect about what, that there must be multiple, verifiable, reliable sources, or that right now there are zero? Both are true, I'm afraid. (Also note that for something to be counted as a source it must include the title of the article – Anarcho-homosexualism) —Mets501 (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You're incorrect because nothing is truly verifiable anyway, Karl Popper demonstrated that. So, short of verifying my article, you guys, who seem to have a deep-seeded hatred for my work, should try to disprove it, instead of whining about sources. joeferret
  • It isn't up to us to disprove anything. You've offered absolutely nothing to show that this concept even exists. There's nothing for us to challenge. Fan-1967 20:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Fan-1967 is just a homophobe. Look the fascist american media has ignored this movement just like all anarchist movements and you guys are a part of it. Ownership of information is wrong. KodakFilm 20:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, anyone who wants to delete this article is a homophobic fascist. Impecable logic. Too bad it doesn't hold water. As a queer and an anarchist I can safely say this movement does not exist, at least not under this name. Don't make personal attacks. The Ungovernable Force 20:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: Besides resorting to personal attacks, this vote represents Kodakfilm's only two edits. Morgan Wick 04:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes there is something for you to challenge: the points made in the article. The concept does exist, and I think I've shown with relative clarity that nothing can be proven, or "verified", with absolute certainty anyway. Also, I think the fact that the article exists lends credit to the existence of the movement itself. Why would I make it up? Finally, like I said before, please stop whining about this. I think you've all made your points, and I've made mine, and I won. So lets let bygones be bygones. joeferret
  • A movement that consists of one guy and his socks is not worthy of an article. Fan-1967 20:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey my socks have nothing to do with this. Leave the socks out of it, they're innocent. joeferret
  • Listen Joe, it's no secret that you've been using sockpuppets to try and get your point across. Either it is all you, or you and your best friend or something. So far, every Wikipedian besides you has voted delete. You should stop making personal attacks, and frankly, if you cannot provide sources which use the word Anarcho-homosexualism, you should give up. —Mets501 (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oy vey. Those are the only two words to describe this. I never use friggin' "sockpuppets", and my friends have nothing to do with this. Simple as that. If some asshole happens to be vandalizing other comments or supporting me for some reason, then how is that my fault? Listen to my arguments, not his. Also, cocksjoeferret
  • "Also, cocks"? Where did that come from? —Mets501 (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Grr I think its that Kodakfilm guy. He should be blocked from Wikipedia. joeferret
    • KodakFilm did not add "Also, cocks". You did. Do you have an explanation? —Mets501 (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Joe, noone besides yourself entered that text. The proof is right here Beyond that, I want to point out that the history page also shows that you are using Sockpuppets here. The IP 72.134.55.158 is linked to not only your but Kodakfilm's comments. --Bschott 21:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • (personal attack/vandalism removed) —Mets501 (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I think that Fan-1967 is correct. It may be time ask an Admin to close this AFD. Possibly cite Joe for vandalism, hoax/joke articles, sockpuppets and trying to abuse WP to make a point --Bschott 21:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Even if it isn't closed, just stop responding to him. No further comments are needed here. Fan-1967 21:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I totally agree. —Mets501 (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete One guy in 1873 wrote an essay about "Post-Capitalist Anti-Fascism" and handed out on a street corner. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You guys don't know what your'e talking about. Funny how my "personal attack" was removed, but when you people slander me by saying I use sockpuppets, total silence. If Kodakfilm was my sockpuppet, WE WOULD HAVE THE SAME IP ADDRESS. WE DO NOT. STOP BEING IGNORANT. joeferret
  • As can easily be found out, my IP address is 72.134.55.158, while Kodakfilm's IP address is 75.27.239.17. Hopefully this will stop the lazy slander that you people so blatantly participate in. joeferret
    • So far, you've donwe nothing but hide behind a series of flimsy pretexts and strawberry arguments. You still haven't shown how this exists beyond your own mind, and the closest you've come to a legit argument is trashing the policy and not showing how it adheres to it. And I now suspect Kodakfilm is either you on another computer, or your best friend, since you know his IP address. Striked out as Kodakfilm had earlier voted as an IP, thus giving it away. Morgan Wick 04:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentially, I just got this on my talk page:

Please consider not responding any further. It somehow boosts his ego to respond. In other words, don't feed the troll. If no one responds to him, he has nothing to say. The results of the AFD are already inevitable, so nobody needs to say anything further. Fan-1967 04:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, I would like to ask that this be the last word on this subject (well, with the exception of Joeferret blathering to himself) until it comes time to close. Morgan Wick 04:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I won't say anything else to you hypocrits, except to make sure that its known that the user Bschott slandered me by accusing me of using so-called sockpuppets, when I clearly haven't. I guess the world just isn't ready for anarcho-homosexualism. Finally, I'd like to thank the few out there who supported my cause, and I'd like to say pokeyman, pokey is the guy who comes out of the thing..and he looks hhfffebbhbhehheb, the kids liisten tothe rap music, which gives them the brain damage, ya see, jazz is like jello pudding, no actually it's more like kodak film...actually jazz is like the new coke, it will be around forever heh heh heh. Koo koo katchoo! Abuckbuck. Here I go down the slopes hey there little fella you like to jump rope? I had an uncle named stewie and he used to sell bicycles whatchugot there? A BIG STINKY DOO DOO HEAD! In closing, also cocks. lol, internet. joeferret
  • delete neologism, unsourced OR. HGB 17:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Grr stop making me say stuff. Neologism esta una retardando. Plz disregard his useless vote. Peace. joeferret
  • keep I actually own a copy of that publication, The Gay Anarchist. I think the confusion here is the name of the movement. I've heard some people call it anarcho-homosexualism, but it's more of a new pc term used to describe the movement, Queer Anarchy is also used in addition to less common term "gaynarchy". Many don't refer to it as anarchy at all for PR reasons, but the movement does exist. There's a movement in San Francisco called "Gay Shame" which promotes what could be described as anarcho-homosexualism. Just my two cents Hosedeck 05:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep (for now) I think that joeferret and that other user KodakFilm are acting very childish. This is encyclopedia, not a game. That being said I feel sorry for them because I think this article acutually deserves some attention. I think the problem here is that the page needs more work put into it. There are many entries on wikipedia that could use the same attention, yet no one ever tries to delete them. Why not keep it up for now and have some more extensive research put into it? DownTheSlopes 06:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The facts are there ok...you don't need to go find out about it from the corporate media or the republican propaganda machine KodakFilm 06:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Shut up Kodak, you're hurting my cause. Just let these fine sensible people help me out without you ruining it. 72.134.55.158 07:16, 12 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.