Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straight pride

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 of the debate was Keep. MCB 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straight pride

• Delete this homophobic neologism --
  talk) 04:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The article is a mess, but I know that certain college groups have been organizing "straight pride" marches and days and I think there have been some lawsuits over this as well. We need an article that explains the issue, homophobic or not. I would also appreciate it if you could make more of an effort with your nom. Delete this is not good enough. -- JJay 05:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A check on Newsbank shows hits for straight pride going back to the 1980s in both the US and UK involving high schools, colleges, municipalities, demonstrations, etc. -- JJay 05:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. We don't delete
  original synthesis, though. Gazpacho 06:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The article needs a lot of work, but I've definitely heard of the concept before and it does seem to have a following. Besides, as Gazpacho said, just because it's offensive doesn't mean it's unencyclopædic. —DO'Neil 06:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Blue ribbon campaign forever! Rogue 9 07:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleting stuff for being "homophobic" is ultimately counterproductive. By creating a balanced, neutral and NPOV article on the concept, we allow homophobes to destroy themselves with their own utterances. This vote cast by a gay guy.
  FCYTravis 07:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Deleting topics just because they are controversial is counterproductive and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Movementarian 07:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per JJay's and Gazpacho's comments. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Openly biased nomination. CalJW 12:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep group does exist.--MONGO 12:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. This is a more common occurence especially on high school campuses. Jtmichcock 18:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JJay Ajwebb 22:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. I'm not a fan of the "movement" (for lack of a better word) by any stretch of the imagination, but the concept exists and deserves to be included. Bindingtheory 03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - gets almost 25K non-wikpedia google hits [1], so pretty notable. Also, I don't think it's neccesarilly homophobic. It can just be a place for straight people to celebrate their sexuality. Blackcats 04:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and get to work on revisions. The concept should be addressed, but the extreme overuse of "homophobic" makes most of the current article useless, offensive, and inaccurate. --Ajdz 22:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per JJay
  T/_C\^@ 23:49, 2 January 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.