Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No homo

Add links
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. I think this is an appropriate application of WP:IAR, since the DYK nomination is under way. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification: Technically, what I meant was WP:SNOW. However, because there is now a "rule" against SNOW closures, I am "ignoring" the rule in order to close it. Normally, the 1% chance of an AfD turning out with an unexpected result is enough to wait 7 days, which causes no harm. But letting a DYK go stale is harmful, however small in extent. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No homo

[edit]
No homo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism. Article has been speedied several times before (and was indeed salted prior to its recreation). Better suited for Wiktionary. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, again, WP:NEO says that neologisms are "words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." It also says that although it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society, and thus to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're making my point for me. Phrases like "on the Internet" and "in larger society" are used specifically to make a contrast to reliable sources. Which this article has. Lampman (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete At least one source is non-trivially about the term, but the rest aren't. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC) The sources are mostly nontrivial, but I don't know if they really provide enough to make this more than a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then please explain to me what does constitute reliable source coverage of the term, beyond five articles in highly reliable publications on the subject. Because I seriously don't know what more would meet the criteria if that doesn't. Lampman (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Of course part of the article is a definition of its subject, just as is any proper encyclopedia article. I disagree with a merge, as this subject wouldn't even merit a parenthetical mention in hip hop culture due to its comparative weight. To me, that move would be akin to merging Surtsey into Europe. I see no policy or practical reason for merging if this subject is in fact notable, which you seem to concede. Strikehold (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The definition here goes beyond explaining what the subject is and wanders into the etymology, etc. of the term (Wiktionary is about terms, Wikipedia is about concepts). As for notability, the cultural aspects part has limited notablility as a part of an article cultural aspects of hip-hop, or perhaps as an article about attitudes to homosexuality in popular culture, but not enough for a standalone article. An article about the term "no homo" rather than the concept it embodies, is not Wikipedia material and should not be more than a redirect to where the concept is discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lampman and Strikehold. Owen× ☎ 11:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The content is fairly encyclopedic and relatively well-sourced, though of course it could use strengthening. The fact that the sources are journalistic rather than "scholarly" strikes me as odd, but that's certainly no reason for deletion. The page is currently an orphan, but there seem to be some pages (e.g. Tori Fixx, Sexual norm) that arguably should have links to this page. Also, the formerly speedy-deleted pages were cited as 'nonsense'; the current page is not that. Cnilep (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sounds like a notable phenomenon and is well sourced. --Alynna (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NEO
This page in a nutshell: A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing.
Undeniably meets this requirement. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lampman, Strikehold, Cnilep, and Floydian. The article has context, history, usage and contains valid citations within the text. The New York and Slate pieces are specifically about the phrase, the concept, and it's use. Clearly passes WP:NEO as a reason to keep with multiple WP:RS. — Becksguy (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/No_homo&oldid=1138166478"