Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gayelle (lesbian)

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 Speedily Deleted - Created by indef banned user. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gayelle (lesbian)

Gayelle (lesbian) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Proposed new term for lesbian. Non-notable neologism. Essentailly the article is spam for a clothes shop. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as neologism. The linked sources are just a bunch of blogs and the stuff from said clothes shop, nothing reliable to prove the term is in established use. --erachima formerly tjstrf 06:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Still delete. After looking at the new version of the article, I'm afraid my concerns still haven't been addressed. The article is better formatted, to be sure, but it still lacks the necessary proof of notability. --erachima formerly tjstrf 13:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, standard failure of WP:NEO. It isn't a "clothes shop", though, it's just a cafepress attached to a pretty basic one-issue website. --Dhartung | Talk 07:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fail WP:NEO. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --- Taroaldo (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:NEO, sourcing is blogs and the for-profit organization pushing this trademarked term for a line of merchandise, some sources note this article as evidence of notability setting up a vicious circle. - Dravecky (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The blog that mentions wikipedia, mentions the disambiguation page Gayelle (disambiguation) and was written before this articleNewAtThis (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Urban Dictionary is not used as a source for this article it is simple in the external links.NewAtThis (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep-notable term, i hear it on energy 92.7 all the time and it has received press coverage on Logo and CBS news. Can somebody look into it before they jump to conclusions?NewAtThis (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually only the source is listed, i need actual link to the CBS News and Logo sources. the only Google News articles I can find are to an unrelated cable channel in Trinidad and Tobago Doc StrangeMailbox Orbitting Black HoleStrange Frequencies 14:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Note above vote is from primary editor of article. JuJube (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually the article is about a movement (Gayelle® is a movement [...]) not the word. The movement looks non-notable, but the discussion should about about that, I think. - Nabla (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Lesbian and add a small, sourced, mention in it. - Nabla (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The fact that the name is presented as a registered trademark is proof enough to me that it is not a movement, but is in fact a marketing term intended to move product. DarkAudit (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This is not a marketing term and it is not trade marked it is reserved, hipshe is trade marked and it is not presented that way. I simply thought that when a term is reserved or trademarked we are obligated to put in the (r) (tm) (C) alongside the name. I removed them. Move Product? what product? Its a term and social movement. I wouldn't say Hillary Clinton is trying to sell product for selling bumper stickers and t-shirts.NewAtThis (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. --  SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Blatant advertising, and thinly veiled questions on the Reference Desk will not change this from being the case. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, advertising for what? And second of all I have nothing to due with the gayelle or sapphic chic people. I'm not trying to advertise anything. I do think in the quest for all human knowledge we should mention things such as this. And when an editor makes a good faith claim that there are good reliable sources such as CBS to back it up maybe a good faith search and trying to back him up would be in order instead of trying to destroy a new article without giving it a chance. As for your accusations of my thinly veiled questions, veiled as what? What are you insinuating?NewAtThis (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've said this once and i'll say it again. You'll need to produce the CBS source for it to be used in the article. Simply mentioning it does not help. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 16:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As either a newly coined word or a reserved or trade mark, it is not appropriate as the subject of a Wikipedia article. If it turns out to be, in the future, a movement of substance, the encyclopedia will be here then to include it. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Revision is not as spammy, but the term is still one created and pushed by public relations people, not by the community at large. DarkAudit (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more, however that doesn't have anything to do with notability. Perhaps this should be elaborated in the article. Do you have any sources for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewAtThis (talk • contribs) 04:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is not just notability. It's that the term is a neologism. The Wikipedia community, especially the denizens of AfD, do not care for neologisms. The movement is too new to give the term time to enter the general vernacular. Three months isn't enough. DarkAudit (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment After being asked to reconsider the revised version I find it improved but still failing notability. Sources 1 and 2 are the same article in a slightly different wrapper, the bulk of the remaining sources are blogs or the self-interested Sapphic Chic website, and source 11 is the "Neology" blog which only goes to proving that WP:NEO applies here. None of this goes to proving notability, only that a few bloggers will respond to a press release for an attention grabbing "funny" story. If pressed again I will change my vote... to Strong Delete. - Dravecky (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per pretty much everyone, this seems to be another P.C. spin job. Also note that the primary editor, User:NewAtThis, has copied the page to his/her userpage. JuJube (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I was going to ask if anyone else thought it bizarre that an alleged reliable source added to help disprove the position that the subject is a neologism was in fact a blog titled Neology. I see the thought has already occurred. There is nothing to warrant a change of my position. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Same here. New sources are more reliable, but indicate only that the term is a protologism attempting to inject itself into the culture, not that the term has currency or any importance as of yet. --Dhartung | Talk 09:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with everyone above, None of the sources featured are reliable sources and User:NewAtThis has yet to produce the actual article from CBS News about the term. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment User:NewAtThis has also canvassed my Talk page to change my vote based on added "new" sources. I am not seeing anything much more than blogs and similar "every passing breeze" mentions. There is nothing new that would change my "delete" vote above. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment User:NewAtThis's User page is an exact a substantive copy of this article. Would it be appropriate to tie the deletion of the content of the user page to the deletion of the article, should that be the concensus? ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
KEEP IT ON THE SUBJECT YOU WITCHHUNTERS!please don't let your personal opinions influence this discussion, keep it to policy, and don't bring my user page up. thank you.NewAtThis (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongest Possible Delete per WP:NEO, WP:N, and also, probably, WP:V. Undeath (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, oh, yes, delete. It's a dreadful neologism. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

'What's wrong with aussienews and the daily telegraph, they are legitimate sources, I think the advocate has brought it up too.70.1.209.112 (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They have? Then prove it. DarkAudit (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with Tango Magazine, Naughty Trends Magazine, Anodis, Aussie News and The Daily Telegraph as sources?NewAtThis (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Seriously, please review WP:RS, WP:NEO etc. I cannot understand how anyone could suggest that those citations meet these criteria. --- Taroaldo (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. --Alchemy12 (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:NEO --Pmedema (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Mention and Redirect - In reading the below suggestions, I think that that is fair. I agree with User:Friday that it may deserve a mention in lesbian but does not warrent a separate article.--Pmedema (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. Random question, though...why was this relisted merely two days after it started? There's plenty of debate and consensus to delete looks pretty clear... --SmashvilleBONK! 15:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • comment, or radom answer... NewAtThis did it to permit more debate and for people to take a look at new sources provided and for more to be found at lexus nexus see diff. I delisted it as there is no need to duplication. If an admin looking at this believes more debate is needed s/he will relist, typically he will take the new info into account (and there's always Deletin Review if he does not) - Nabla (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge about one cited sentence to Lesbian, and redirect. It's a neologism that a few are writing about, but there's no need for a separate article. Aleta Sing 17:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • weak keep Sources in article talk about the term and are non-trivial. Not sure it has really gotten beyond the neologism stage yet though. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    May be a good reason for this term to get a sentence or two at lesbian. I just don't see that there's enough for a separate article here. Friday (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Conflicted. I think the subject meets the formal notability guidelines - it is a commercial organization that has filed a trademark for a new lifestyle brand it is creating and sells clothing under that trademark[www.cafepress.com/sapphicchic]. The trademark was filed a couple years ago by an individual living in the Bay Area, California. As part of that effort it has gained some publicity worldwide (with substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources) for promoting its brand name as a new term to describe its demographic. Or vice versa - it's a movement that trademarked its name and sells tee shirts. In any event the article, if it survives, should be modified and possibly renamed to be about the organization, not the neologism it's trying to create. However, this article was created by a sockpuppet of a prolific disruptive user, QRC2006 / Boomgaylove, who has made a mess of Bay Area, California articles about queer issues and geography. That clouds the whole issue. Wikidemo (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2008 (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.