Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straight pride (2nd nomination)

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. Inexplicably, this rather poorly-defined entry is more lengthy than the Gay pride article itself, this notwithstanding the fact that the consensus here point to it being, at this time, a mere footnote extension of the latter. El_C 17:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straight pride

Straight pride (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

(I originally deleted this outright for the reasons that follow, but I have undeleted it and brought it to AfD for a full discussion.)

This article was nominated for deletion a year and a half ago for the flimsy argument of being "homophobic," and given only that argument it was rightfully kept, as Wikipedia is not censored and controversial subjects are OK to write about as long as done in an NPOV manner (cf. the obviously related White pride).

However, the article has been tagged as needing verification and sourcing for most of its life here on Wikipedia (over 2 years), and there are still no reliable sources firmly documenting the existence and notability of "straight pride" as a concept. The majority of the sources seem to come from the "Straight Pride Clothing Company," obviously an unacceptable source and bordering on advertising, while the rest of the sources only discuss tangential points, including a couple news articles about College Republicans controversies. The central focus of the article -- that there is a notable movement or concept of "straight pride" -- is completely unsourced and unverifiable, and has been this way for the life of the article.

If reliable sources surface that confirm that this is a cohesive idea that is indeed notable, this article can certainly be rewritten, but the article as-is is an unsalvageable mess of original research and synthesis. Krimpet 10:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this unverifiable junk. This article was tagged as unverified less than half a day after it was created two years ago, and hasn't improved since. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Remove the spam and the unsourced claims and there's nothing left. --AliceJMarkham 10:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The term is notable (as was discussed in the previous AfD), but there are some severe OWN issues with this article in its present form. I'd suggest an administrator intervention with the relevant editor, and strongly suggest adding the URL of the t-shirt vendor to the blacklist to prevent it from being re-added. I'm not going to lose sleep over this going away, however. Horologium t-c 12:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the article as a whole seems to be an advertisment for some T-shirts of questionable taste. Unless other sources can be found documenting that this is a coherent philosophy (and a quick search by me did not turn any up), then this should be deleted as unverifiable. Lankiveil 12:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC).
• Delete as the article seems to be little more than a vehicle for advertisement, especially given the long time provided to verify the term. Krimpet, thank you for a very well-written nomination. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Lankiveil. I'm not comfortable with the wiki being a place to push your "straight pride" products. Someone demonstrate a movement that can be written about with reliable sources, and take out all the merchandise pushing, and then we can talk about saving the article. - Philippe | Talk 13:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing notable about this, just a knee-jerk reversal of the phrase "gay pride". God knows why this crap was kept in the first place. --Calton | Talk 14:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, although it looks like a wasted "vote". I'm seeing the following independent sources: KCRA Sacramento, Telluride Daily Planet, Fox news, 2001, Oak Ridger, 1997, NY Times, 1991, etc etc. Needs cleanup of course, and from the looks of the talk page there's flaring tempers among contributing editors, but I'd hardly call the subject matter "unverifiable". --DeLarge 15:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

not wasted, since your argument will be considered by those who subsequently arrive. Don't let the pile-up in the first few hours necessarily determine the discussion. DGG (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per DeLarge's notability references, despite the apparent WP:SNOW in the other direction Spazure 04:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite completely, or alternatively, smerge it into Gay Pride. The term is verifiable as demonstrated by the above sources, however it is not what this article paints it to be. There does not appear to be any organized "Straight Pride" movement as this article would lead one to believe. It seems to have arisen several times, largely as a protest measure, and its useage as such appears notable. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per noms ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep pending a serious rewrite: the sources (above and in the article) do not provide evidence of a 'Straight Pride' movement, although they support the isolated use of the term. Notability is met, but the spamlinks need to go. EyeSerene^TALK 16:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per noms. Utterly non-notable and a weak effort at promotion of an obscure website (and what's with that t-shirt thing??). Also fails the Google Test - Alison ☺ 17:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Looking at the sources provided by DeLarge: The NYT - I didn't fancy shelling out $5, but the first para was just about a 'Conservative Awareness Week' and didn't mention straight pride. The Telluride article is about a satire. FOX story is about a case where a kid is stopped by his school from wearing a straight pride shirt. Oak Ridger is about a Straight Pride Day organised by an LGB society, which didn't actually happen. This does not add up to 'Article' in my mind, and no-one is defending the article's current sorry state. Anything worth saying - and there possibly isn't - should go into Gay Pride. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge (to Gay Pride). Despite everyone apparently believing that I have WP:OWN issues with this article, I don't. I spent part of yesterday trying to keep a single editor from gutting an article without first building consensus to do so. Instead of accepting the reversion of his bold changes, per WP:BRD, he continued to reinsert them and when that failed, he chocked the article full of warning tags, several of which were completely frivolous (I am not the only one of such an opinion, and no other "regular" editor of the article believed the tags were appropriate). When violating BRD, 3RR, and the policies of the tags he abused wasn't enough, he nominated it for speedy deletion, and three of us independently stepped in and said that he was out of line. It was deleted anyway, despite a holdon tag, and I then had to get an administrator to undo a speedy deletion that was not properly justified, and whose justification did not match that which was given in the edit summary. So, my trying to build consensus is not the same as having OWN issues. In fact, I even suggested that the article be entirely rewritten or AfD'd, which would have been the proper procedure, had it been done so in a way that involves consensus. I guess maybe I have issues with consensus, in that I respect it more than most. I am also fairly insulted that several people are claiming "this is a terrible, horrible article that we hate, and it hasn't gotten better since the day it was created." I would question the judgment of anyone who considers this to be no improvement from this, this, or this. I originally intended to abstain, but I feel as though so many of the other contributors to this discussion haven't given enough (any) consideration to this article before their "delete" votes based on "spam" and "junk" and "advertising" and that I should do something to even it out. I think rewrite/merging it into Gay Pride is a great idea, actually, and I wish someone had thought of it sooner. --Cheeser1 19:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete article as is is just an ad for a political website to attempt to sell t-shirts and pretend it's about a movement. All attempts by more than just one editor have been reverted or editied back like a guard standing at the door all atempts to improve the article have been edited back. A single editor on the page refuses to allow any bold changes incorrectly citing wikipedia policy. There may be much more to his reasons. If the article is kept it needs to black list "Straight Pride Wear" clothing store also known as "Straight Pride.com" from further use. All references can be ubtained from original sources as no source refering to "Straight Pride" was actualy their original work.--Amadscientist 21:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but rewrite as per DeLarge and EyeSerene. Get rid of the spam components and add sources; there should be enough left for a stub anyway. Aleta 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  What sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  Look at DeLarge's post above. Aleta 22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, let's. In order...

  • A planned sudent event, no report on whether it happened or not.
  • A blog post on a parody march with a dozen or so participants.
  • A Fox News report on what seems to be one of the shirts sold by the site that the Wikipedia article is currently advertising. Did anyone else pick up this story?
  • A local newspaper report about a failed "straight pride" event organized by a college LGBT group.
  • An article about a failed "conservative awareness week."

  What conclusion can we derive from these articles? "Every so often someone gets the idea to run a 'straight pride' parade or gathering, but it almost always fails due to backlash or a lack of interest"? None of those sources establish the existence and notability of "straight pride" as a concept. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Even though it needs a serious re-write. Get rid of all of the baggages and start it up from a stub. ~ Wikihermit 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete.Non-noteworthy. Non-encyclopedic. Merge any noteworthy, verifiable content, if there even is any, into Gay pride. ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 22:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - There are verifiable references to a grass roots movement that is disorganized and non cohesive. If the page should remain it should be moved (or renamed) to "Straight Pride movement" and allowed to be freely edited and corrected by editors where needed. Consensus was there for a re-write and for removal of the links and references to "Straight Pride.com" but all attempts to remove the large section that refers only to that web site was met with reverts and edits returning it back. I honestly believe at this point that it may not be noteworthy enough a subject to include in wikipedia. I know the site is not noteworthy enough for it's own page. It contains no original research or opinion that I can see. All articles are attributed to other sources yet when used as references on the page they are attributing the articles to "Straight Pride.com" just so the name and url are prominently displayed.--Amadscientist 22:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Response to comments: You are the one who originally nominated it for speedy deletion. Now you are advocating the existence of a legitimate movement?? For someone on a crusade against OR, this seems highly dubious. Furthermore, the links to straightpride.com were to indicate where a political website gets its info. If Bob writes an article, and in this article he cites Alice's article, and we want to Wikipedia to say "Bob cited Alice's article," whose article do I cite? Bob's. Not Alice's. (If you don't get it, Bob = sp.com, Alice = the original places where sp.com's political content was published). --Cheeser1 23:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Response to Response to comments: Exactly who is on a crusade? You seem bent on keeping information out of the article. After reading the admins comments at the top of the page I began research on this website alone and found this...;

The “Straight Pride” movement has connections with “Rock for Life” which, according to straightpride.com, “is a division of the American Life League, the nation’s largest pro-life educational organization.”

“Straight Pride” links its Web site to Dr. James Dobson’s, founder of Focus on the Family and author of Christian self-help books.

Dobson was in the news recently when he worked with Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to prevent the removal of Terry Schiavo’s feeding tube. Dobson also publicly lent his endorsement to California’s Proposition 22, which sought to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Political analyst Michael Crowly of Slate magazine cites Dobson as the catalyst in President Bush’s successful re-election campaigns in Florida and Ohio.

“Straight Pride’s” association with these organizations and its not-so-“straight pride” political efforts suggests its motives extend well beyond the realm of strengthening the heterosexual community (if that was ever the case to begin with) and are more closely aligned with promoting right-wing, neo-conservative policies.

also although it brings up Elliot Chambers it presents him as a victim, but fails to mention his activism or comments made by the now 22 year old such as these;

"... a safe and respectful environment for gay, lesbian, and bisexual, staff, and families. Confidentiality respected." (The ad then goes on to list all 48-50-classroom numbers and faculty members' names.) This is clearly recruitment into the gay and lesbian lifestyle." and these "They have abandoned the goal of educating students and have chosen, instead, to indoctrinate them into left- wing, liberal wacko ideology." Clearly if the article is to remain there is a great deal more that needs to be added!--Amadscientist 02:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Agree - rename: straight pride movement is certainly a better way of handling this topic.^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 23:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Traditional marriage movement or Gay pride until such time as the topic warrants an article all its own (i.e. - an organized movement). ZueJay (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - there are over 2.8 million hits for Straight Pride on Google; hardly something that is not "organized". Links to retail stores seems unacceptable, but there are plenty of other references. It would seem spiteful to merge it into the Gay pride article; they are diametrically opposed groups. With this many hits the article can be improved and sourced appropriately. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 10:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, if you search for "straight pride" with the inverted commas there to make it search for the words as a phrase, as opposed to just matching articles that happen to have both words regardless of context and how far apart they are, google returns "about 39,100" matches. Repeat with "straight pride" -wikipedia to remove wikipedia pages and derivatives and it comes down to "about 35,900", which still includes a lot of blogs discussing the straightpridewear web site, why straight pride doesn't exist, etc. --AliceJMarkham 12:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yeppers. "Straight pride" -wikipedia -blog has about 19,500 hits. Less the plural of blogs, and there are about 11,600 hits. ZueJay (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Explain how having a lot of hits on a neo conservative website that sells T-shirts with slogans qualifies as "organized". This is the problem. The site itself is being improperly emphasized AS the article. It does not actually claim to be the "Official" site anywhere but it's Google description. The article here on wiki says it has substantive information when it really doesn't. And if you look up "Straight Pride" you will find that there is very little information on the term at all, but what there is does show other sources and sites, however many of the articles speak to the lack of a true movement. That a group is attempting to push forward an agenda without a movement, so to speak. Yes there seems to be a small grass roots "following" I probably shouldn't use the term "movement"...as that may be overstating. However as the Admin points out above it is mainly College Republicans. Also, something I quickly discovered, many of these articles such as the KCRA.com article, are republishings of the same source material. The same article that KCRA.com posted is copied in several locations. It may appear as different headers in different locations....but it's the same article. No organization so far stands out as the leader, but this looks like a real attempt to define that site as such by people, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia.--Amadscientist 21:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Article now rewritten with reliable sources and otherwise meets Wikipedia policy. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Jreferee has done an outstanding job turning the formerly messy spam-filled article into a real source of information complete with references. Great job! Benjiboi 05:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• KeepPer Jreferee's changes. i ^{(said) (did)} 05:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Jreferee's effort and intent are to be commended. The result, however, is still problematic. The article's lead describes this as a "loosely organized movement," but then cites no cases of it being organized by anyone at all. The lead is full of further weasely claims: "it is seen by some to have the potential to water down local impact of the gay pride movement." Who? "Symbols of straight pride include white pins emblazoned with blue squares." According to whom?
  After the lead, it's then just a list of random news reports that mention "straight pride," illustrating no movement or coherence. It's just a list of random counter-marches or unsuccessful non-events.
  This article attempts to combine snarky T-shirts, counter-marches, and unsuccessful "Why not?" events run by LGBT groups into some sort of "movement," while not a single one of the sources refer to any sort of organization, movement, coordination, or connection.
  Because of these problems, I still feel this original synthesis of vaguely-related news stories should still be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  It's a major improvement and is only a beginning. True it could use the term "following" instead of "movement", but hey it's can still be edited by all. Let's just not chop it down and hope that the heart of the article reamains as Jreferee wrote it.--Amadscientist 06:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  It is a major improvement in appearance, but it's a coat of paint over the real problem: there's no source anywhere that draws these threads together into a whole. It's an original synthesis. There's no movement or following anywhere. This isn't like gay pride or white pride, where there are even people self-identifying; this is all parodies, backlash groups, or LGBT groups trying to be fair. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  As true as that is....and I do believe it. There are actual people that are making these parodies and in some cases they are more like a backlash or even worse hate filled marches of resentment. I agree it is not a national movement and have changed the word "movement" to "Following" but if you are not going to envolve yourself as an editor to back your own assertions what do you have. Edit the article in as nuetral a manner as you can. But I suggest research. Don't let your point of view stand in the way of what may be in front of you as bad and as hard to swallow as it may be.--Amadscientist 07:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  My point of view? What do you think I'm biased against? (Spoiler: I'm biased against original research.)

  We shouldn't be the first to describe a trend. No source ever mentions any two of these things in the same breath. Ever. Anywhere. This is an original synthesis of vaguely similar things. You can't describe it as a movement or a following or as anything because nobody anywhere has ever described "it" as anything. Every single factual claim in the lead is unverified and unverifiable, because they're all original conclusions based on primary sources.

  I urge the closing admin to take into account the lack of sources ever drawing together these disparate events into a "movement" or a "following" or a "trend" or whatever, and close this AFD accordingly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• I meant "Point of view" in a wiki sorta way. Not in a personal way. I am still hoping that the vote just deletes the article, but this is a better beginning and with everyones attention on it now we should be able to make it something worth while. Believe it or not we do need editors like yourself to weigh in.--Amadscientist 08:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I dug through every academic database I could find to source this article. There's virtually nothing. Everything that mentioned "straight pride" basically said nothing about it; it's largely discussed as a heterosexual reaction to the concept of gay pride, and nothing more. The "references" and treatment in the media bear this out. It's not really even a movement; it's more like a phrase that's been co-opted by people opposed to gay pride in some fashion, and shows up on t-shirts. --Haemo 08:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I see other editors have taken to vigorously editing and tagging the article which is probably good. I suggest that the lede needs to be re-written rather than cite-tagging every sentence. The only instances I've heard of Strait Pride are instances of veiled homophobic responses to Gay pride events like the Day of Silence and National Coming Out Day. If that's what strait pride is then fine - state it concisely and neutrally. Benjiboi 09:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I did add a few things, with references. I added Elliott Chambers name which was left out of this version, which I felt needed to be there as well as his activist comments from his sel wriiten article. We needed to know he was not just an innocent straight victim of Heterophobia. I also added the judges name and comments from the case as to be sure and mention that he was not citing as much for straight pride but for nondiscrimination on both sides. And as I mentioned above I changed movement to following.

I agree that the lead in may need to re-written, only because I am unable to find any web references. Perhaps the original author has more RT references.--Amadscientist 10:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My instinct would to remove the lede (at least temporarily) and see what supportable article is there. What does the credible information with no assumptions say. Write that summary and see what info from the prior lede is valid and weave it together. Benjiboi 10:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing the lead strips the article of all context and merit. Without the lead, it's really just a grab-bag of marginally notable events carried out by conservative groups, typically on campuses, which use the term "straight pride". They're no longer indicative of any movement, just the satire of the term "gay pride" by groups opposed to homosexuality in some way. The subject no longer becomes notable; rather, it becomes perhaps a footnote to homophobia or gay pride. I mean, really, the entire article just becomes padding for the line "Straight pride is a phrase used by groups opposed to homosexuality as a satire of gay pride, and to express heterosexual identity and solidarity; usually in opposition to homosexual activism. The only reason the sourced material persists at this time is because it's purportedly part of the "timeline" of a movement. If you eliminate all mention or assertion that there is a movement, we're left with a loosely connected series of events with no rationale for why they have their own article. --Haemo 03:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom and Haemo et al. I too looked for anything which would validate this as a legitimate subject per WP:N -nothing except an "activist" website selling t-shirts. If this article has been around for 2 years, I'm amazed. There's been more than enough time given for this to be fixed, and it hasn't been, because it's simply not fixable. <<-armon->> 12:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since this seems to have been more a blip on the College Republican radar and not a notable movement of any sort. Two years is more than enough time to make this appear to be a movement, and not some early 1990s gag campaign. --David Shankbone 23:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This page has been included on the Sexuality and gender-related AfDs. Aleta 02:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – It's gone without sources for far too long, and I see no evidence that said sources will ever be provided. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 02:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge the sourced info into different articles; maybe into gay pride, maybe into College Republicans; both even. This is, however, not a unified movement, delete the article. Atropos 03:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources to substantiate the basis for this article's esistence, nor does it seem that they are likely to be forthcoming. Rebecca 03:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Haemo, David Shankbone, Rebecca, et al. Bearian 15:50, 30 July 2007 (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.