Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Friendly level
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. moink 11:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Gay Friendly level
I'm not sure what this is, but it does not appear to be an encyclopedia article: appears to be idiosyncratic / original research. -- The Anome 18:18, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)]
- Bizarre - google search returns 0 hits. I think someone made this up... delete. quiffhanger
- Please wait a bit. A newcomer user:80.53.83.194 is doing some global development in good faith. It looks like this is going to be kind of legend for his tables. Please see his contibutions and give him an advice how to proceed according to wiippedia rules. Mikkalai 20:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- He must state his source. If he has created the table himself it must be considered original research, and be deleted. Eixo 21:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You seem to not understand what I am saying. It is not a "research". It is a "legend". AFAIK the guy intends to write a series of articles about gay rights in many countries. Please look at Gay Rights in Poland for example. It has an entry: "Gay Friendly level: 4.0". IMO this way is much clear than he would write in every article one and the same text:
- ... exists some antidiscrimination law or recognition of cohabiting same sex couples. Gay scene is good, and community is tolerant. But there are some prejudices. There is no discrimination in law. (this corresponds to level 4; the same for other levels).
- I repeat, the editor needs help, not a mere deletion. Mikkalai 02:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know, Mikkalai--if it's a Level assigned by some organization, then he should cite a source. If it's a shorthand he's developed himself, then it does seem to come pretty close to original research. Trying to evaluate the quality of the local "gay scene" (as "great", "good", "small", with various qualifiers) is something that's awfully difficult to NPOV. For the political and civil rights categories in the series of articles, he might be better off just adopting one or more of the measures from List of Indices of Freedom. I've gotta go with delete here. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Agreeing with TenOfAllTrades here; this scale of "LGBT friendliness" is the creation of the user user:80.53.83.194 and not any kind of more widely used definition. It does not belong to mainspace. If s/he wants to preserve it, s/he should register and place it under hir own user page. As far as I am concerned, it seems interesting althought overtly generalistic - Skysmith 09:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sticking to my story here. This “legend” constitutes a table of categorisation, and must as such necessarily be considered a piece of original scholarship by its creator. The information involved here is far too complex and ambiguous to be rated on a simple scale. I appreciate what the creator is trying to do, but either an external source should be quoted, or each entry should be treated separately. Eixo 12:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You seem to not understand what I am saying. It is not a "research". It is a "legend". AFAIK the guy intends to write a series of articles about gay rights in many countries. Please look at Gay Rights in Poland for example. It has an entry: "Gay Friendly level: 4.0". IMO this way is much clear than he would write in every article one and the same text:
- I'm tempted to call this original research, or neologism, or something like that. Weak delete unless a source is provided. Radiant_* 15:39, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- delete, I say. Aris Katsaris 00:21, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Even as a categorisation scheme it is still original research. The categorization scheme is not encyclopedic in and of itself. It doesn't represent a body of knowledge. Kudos to the guy attempting this, though...looks like a valiant, of not well thought out, start of an ambitious project. If reframed and carefully researched something similar to this could work, but this isn't it.Tobycat 03:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
