Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesbian literature

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus default to Keep. If someone would like to merge and redirect, please be bold. Otherwise, if the decision is contested, I will be happy to relist the article for a new, and hopefully less confusing, vote. -- Essjay · Talk 06:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lesbian literature

Speedy delete I think. Nonsense, advertisement, you name it... Agentsoo 02:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advertisement, book review CanadianCaesar 02:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: as a review and advertisement. --ArmadniGeneral 02:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, slowly, painfully, lingeringly. Neither being a book review or being an advert qualifies under any of the WP:CSD, and this is easily intelligble and certianly not hopelessly confused so isn't Wikipedia:patent nonsense either. All of which is rather unfortunate. -Splash 02:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)(vote changed)
• Redirect as below. -Splash 03:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. It's adverising and it's also vanity. AlbertR 02:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Pburka. AlbertR 03:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I guess it comes under "advertisement"... Alex.tan 03:17, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to LGBT literature. Pburka 03:19, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the new article which is developing. Pburka 21:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to LGBT literature; makes sense. Flowerparty ^talk 03:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above; good idea. Antandrus (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• DELETEwhat is this? hippie-ville? we don't need this kind of questionable content here where anyone can access it--205.188.117.74 03:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not censored. CanadianCaesar 03:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Lesbian-related content is not "questionable". Bearcat 17:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect makes sense to me. CanadianCaesar 03:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect works for me, (although I think there is more than enough lesbian literature--distinct from male gay literature--out there for someone to write a decent article under this title in the future). Func( t, c ) 03:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Real article in the works, as per SamuelWantman, AlexR, and Outerlimits. (vote change) Func( t, c ) 20:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Rangerdude 03:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to LGBT literature, you rich bastards. —RaD Man (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect until a real article is written.Keep A real article is being written. -- Samuel Wantman 08:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• For the time being, redirect to LGBT literature. There is certainly material enough out there for an article on this, but this isn't it. -- AlexR 10:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC) vote changed after actual article was created
• Keep, as it is now the beginning of a decent article. -- AlexR 09:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as Samuel Wantman and AlexR. -Axon (talk|contribs) 11:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect for now. As per multiple comments above. BlankVerse ∅ 12:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect for now and hold the space for a future real article. CDThieme 18:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and come back if this turns out to be worth writing a full article on. JDoorjam 19:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: although the topic could be legitimate, current (17:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)) article is flagrant promotion. Peter Grey 17:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• I'm with everybody else; the title is certainly encyclopedic, but the article is far from it. And even if the article were rewritten to be encyclopedic, this would not be its proper title; one specific novel by one specific writer is not the sum total of lesbian lit. Delete/redirect, and get someone with knowledge of the subject to work on a real article for this title. Keep rewrite, now a much better basis for expansion. Good job, Outerlimits! Bearcat 17:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to LGBT literature. JamesBurns 03:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• lesbian and gay male literature are best discussed separately. I've replaced the book review which was originally nominated with some text and a possible framework for building such a discussion of lesbian literature. - Outerlimits 04:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. arj 00:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and develop. There's a lot to be written about this subject! --FOo 03:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (Vote by PeteG; note that this is his first Wikipedia contribution outside of his own user pages and four attempts to redirect an old VfD discussion to a namespace article. Bearcat 17:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC))
• Yet again I change my vote. In light of recent edits, Keep CanadianCaesar 15:27, 8 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.