Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fag hag (2nd nomination)

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 Keep - It is clear there will not be a consensus for deletion, so no need for this to continue. VegaDark 22:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fag hag

Fag hag (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO, survived an AfD 1.5 years ago and has not improved. CyberAnth 04:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. The term is clearly widely used and notable. It did not merely survive the previous Afd, all votes were keep bar the nomination. References are not going to be a problem. I've even read a fairly noted book [1] entitled 'fag hag' in which the central character is such a person. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You'd better get to solving its problems. CyberAnth 04:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I beg your pardon? WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • This hostility seriously reveals much. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep CyberAnth, what exactly do you mean by that? The onus of proof is on the nomination, not on the people trying to fix and/or defend the articles. I am attempting to assume the best of your flood of very simular nominations, but it would be nice if we could work together to fix these articles before reaching for the delete blaster. This appears to be a notable concept, the article cites notability as well, could use cleanup, but we have a perfectly good tag for that, and it doesn't involve AfD debates. Wintermut3 05:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy Keep As above, article can be expanded. Also very notable. Additionally WP:CIVIL. :) Navou talk 05:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • ...or what? --Dennisthe2 09:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Notability is easily established. Here it is in The Advocate. Should have done your homework. — coelacan talk — 05:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep The concept of a "fag hag" is more than the definition of the term, so WP:WINAD doesn't apply. Notability is established and neologism is denied by its commonplace usage within media and popular culture (~200,000 Google hits). Verifiability is no reason to delete the article, and the prevalence of the concept outside the article denies allegations of original research. None of this information was difficult to come by, and the lack of due diligence in making this nomination appalls me. --Ssbohio 05:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Concept is notable; article should be tagged. Bad-faith, disruptive mass nomination per WP:POINT. Please read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_AfD so that you may familiarize yourself with the possible alternatives that should be undertaken before nominating an article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. A cut-and-paste nom gets a cut-and-paste !vote. Echo commentary above. --Dennisthe2 09:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep OK, there are a couple of sources/references added to the article from various nations. Also added an "other uses" to the book & movie. SkierRMH 10:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as another of this nominator's attempts to bowdlerize Wikipedia. Please see WP:POINT. Tarinth 10:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. It's getting harder and harder to AGF with these deletion nominations. Grutness...wha? 11:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. If the nom wants a Wikipedia devoted only to articles suitable for children, perhaps he should start one himself. He might find it easier than constantly proposing perfectly good (if not G-rated) articles for deletion. --Charlene 12:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep: Don't agree with reasons stated for deletion. Atom 13:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting.

  • Speedy keep, I cannot AGF on this, these bunch of AFDs are disrupting a point. Strongly disagree with the nomination, it is definitely notable of course, everything (sources, content, notability) are all present. That's all. Terence Ong 14:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep bad faith nom. Artw 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, all reasons have been said before.... --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - Though I hate the term, it's well referenced and yet another bad faith submission of a sexual topic by CyberAnth.
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.