Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesbian until graduation
Source: 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. Kimchi.sg 16:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lesbian until graduation
NN
neologism, possibly protogism, that fails WP:V Stanfordandson 00:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
- Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 00:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I cannot believe this has been here 2 years.--Crossmr 01:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Though I hate to do so, having read about this in the NY Times, I can attest that it's a real concept, or so the NYT feels, and the article does cite newspapers. - ]
- There's no doubt the concept is real and that the article cites newspapers. However, neither of those is sufficient reason for Wikipedia to keep an article that is, in the end, just a non-notable neologism. Stanfordandson 02:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you claim that the article fails WP:V then?Cowpriest2 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no doubt the concept is real and that the article cites newspapers. However, neither of those is sufficient reason for Wikipedia to keep an article that is, in the end, just a non-notable neologism. Stanfordandson 02:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the NYT times ciatation is enough for somekind of notability in this case. Yanksox 02:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability, maybe, but is there any reason to think this phenomenon actually exists? Moreover, if it does, is there any reason to think it isn't just another neologism, quite possibly a protogism? There's no reason to keep this article. Stanfordandson 03:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability, maybe, but is there any reason to think this phenomenon actually exists? Moreover, if it does, is there any reason to think it isn't just another
- Delete derogatory sexual cruft that a few people made up because they thought it was cute. Perhaps we should AfD Mrs. degree as well. Neither Mrs. degree nor LUG are encyclopedic, except at some sexual website's slang-terminology reference section. If the tongue-in-cheek LUG is encyclopedic, then so are the tongue-in-cheek fraternities I Tappa Kegga and I Spreada Thigh. Perhaps I should add those articles, just to make sure that everyone's clever college slang has a Wikipedia article. At some point we must ask ourselves, is Wikipedia merely a landfill for isolated-subcultures' arcane trivia or a real encyclopedia of merit, such as Encyclopedia Britannica? —optikos 03:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. :) Stanfordandson 05:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Largely as Optikos. Take it to urban dictionary, where it belings alongside BOBFOC. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of everything every mentioned in the press. Non-notable College slang that once got mentioned in the NYT is still non-notable college slang. -- GWO
- Keep. The concept is real, the phonomenon is real, and the term is well beyond the stage of neologism. It's mentioned within LGBT circles as often as (if not more often) than it is by people who made it up because they thought it was cute. -- NORTH talk 08:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per GWO. The NYT is useful as an independant reference on lots of things, but that does not mean that everything in the NYT should have an article here. --Wine Guy Talk 08:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I do think that the term can contain an element of homophobia/misogyny -- I've certainly seen some people use it in such a manner. (That is not to say that all uses of this term involve homophobia or misogyny -- it all depends on context/intentions.) But in any case, I feel that the fact that people invented this term & spread it is notable. The present article is less than impressive, but I still don't think it should go -- its more than just a dictionary entry. And besides, we have articles on heaps of other pejorative/derisive (or potentially pejorative/derisive) sexual or group terms... I think so long as we can talk about the terms origins, motivations, history, the ways in which it is used, etc., its more than a dicdef. --SJK 09:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, if not keep, then merge/redirect to ]
- Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable neologism. Possibly bears a mention as a one-liner in some other article about sexuality but is not a sufficiently notable phenomenon for an article in my opinion regardless of how new it is. MLA 12:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Interesting term. Konman72 12:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable neologism. Ramseystreet 12:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per GWO and others. USA Today and the New York Times and other periodicals often do little issues where they have some information about current slang. That doesn't mean every slang term covered is notable. GassyGuy 12:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Times article cited here is not one of those, however. It is a 1993 article titled Campus Lesbians Step Into Unfamiliar Light. This may have been a neologism in 1993, but it is not anymore. -- NORTH talk 12:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused by this. Are you suggesting that once slang has become old or "out of use," the article should be deleted? If so, then you would have to wipe out a fifth of this site. Yanksox 20:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Times article cited here is not one of those, however. It is a 1993 article titled Campus Lesbians Step Into Unfamiliar Light. This may have been a neologism in 1993, but it is not anymore. -- NORTH talk 12:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into lesbianism or related articles situational sexual behavior; not a neologism though, so I wouldn't oppose a straight keep. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Article does not fail WP:V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If verifiable sources are cited and the term has been around thirteen years (as NORTH points out) then it is not a neologism and passes the the WP:V policy. Scorpiondollprincess 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep well sourced term for interesting concept. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the common usage of the term has been around for some time which invalidates the "neologism" claim. The article is sourced and the information is very relevant to the greater topic of sexuality, in particular bi-sexuality. Agne27 15:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into situational sexual behavior -- it's clearly an example of that, and doesn't warrant a separate article. Susan Davis 20:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or Merge into Human sexual behavior with situational sexual behavior as a subhead. as a case in point of merge, i think LUG is one example of situation sexual behavior, as is, for example, prison sexuality. as a case in point of keeping, however, note that prison sexuality actually has its own wiki entry. however, as a further case towards merge, the prison sexuality article (as it stands) is a total load of crap (imho) and needs to be heavily edited and/or merged back into situational sexual behavior as well. unlike "iota tappa kegga" listed above, LUG is not just a cute phrase, it is also part of a verifiable sexual behavior, and the article should not be deleted as the phenomenon deserves encyclopedic treatment *somewhere*. the problem as i see it is that a valid, verified (and increasingly common) phenomenon is being listed under a cute name, rather like having an entry for "Gay for the Stay" instead of "Prison sexuality"; however, again to be contrarian, please note that wikipedia has a well-worked out page at "Gay-for-pay". and finally, here's a 2005 AP story regarding a CDC study that verifies the activity and the term [1]. sorry i can't make up my mind -- i, um, go both ways on this issue. -- Slamorte 12:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge at best, delete at worst. Does not currently warrant own article -- MrDolomite | Talk 18:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. definitely not new neolojism, protojism, might be a stanfordism though ... Must not be merged with Prison sexuality. Universities aren't prisons. Mostly. horseboy 16:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, documented phenomenon. Gazpacho 16:49, 22 July 2006 (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.