- Pretty boy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
There was even no deletion dicussion on this page It is discriminatory when heterosexual variety gets deleted like that while gay/bisexual variety can remain. Just see the Google hits and Google Books hits, it's a widely used term in sexuology. Deleting it is like deleting Twink (gay slang). Miacek (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, allow WP:BLP problem, so I wouldn't recommend restoring it. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC) [reply
- Redirect to ]
- Suggest this be speedy closed. Miacek's block is an ArbCom action which includes an indef topic ban on any gender-related dispute or controversy, which this clearly is. So let's not waste any more time on this. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I object to a close on that ground. If this is undeleted, it would in no way be restricted to being edited by Miacek, although I would argue that this article is not inherently a gender-related dispute or controversy in any case. If it is draftified, or userfied to a different user, again it is not restricted to being edited by that user. And if the deletion is endorsed but with permission to create a valid article of the same title, should sources be found, (as I would prefer) again there is no reason to think that only Miacek would edit it. This discussion should proceed to a consensus, so that the status of the article, not the user, may be clarified, and so that other editors will know if such an article is or is not permitted.. A speedy close because of the block or the topic ban would be out of process, and should be promptly reverted. Now a SNOW close might be warranted. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, articles about terms are expected to give the reader more than just a definition of the term. This article didn't, so it was moved to Wiktionary which is happy to take dictionary entries. Twink (gay slang) goes beyond a dictionary definition of the subject so it can't be deleted for this reason. This has nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination. You are welcome to write a new article about the topic, as long as it isn't a dictionary definition. Hut 8.5 17:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC) [reply- Could anyone undelete the deleted article to my personal space so that I could see what we're talking about? I'll try to create a better article, but I'm not a magician, either.Miacek (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, there's something in the deleted text which could be construed as a
WP:BLP violation and/or a personal attack. I might be paranoid about that, but erring on the side of caution seems wise. Trust me, there's really nothing in the deleted text that would make a good starting point for a new article. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC) [reply- I've been trying to find sources for a new article, but sadly, I've failed. If the consensus is endorse undeletion, just undelete it into my sandbox, in the mainspace it would get deleted immediately again, I couldn't find sources that other editors would accept.Miacek (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion but permit creation of a sourced, policy-compliant version, should that be possible. There is one 5-word sentence that seems to refer to a specific individual, otherwise there is no possible BLP issue in the last deleted version. Should this close as endorse, I would be willing to userfy the page with that sentence removed. But honestly, there is nothing here likely to be of use in creating a valid article. It would be better to start from any valid sources found, and if one can't find any, not to start. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, that one sentence is what I was talking about. I have no objection to userfication with that one sentence removed. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This version, corresponding to the 28 June 2010 deletion, is closer to being a useful start to an article than the most recent revision. Mind you, it's still totally unsourced, and I'd still vote TNT even if it were sourced and it were nominated for deletion in that state.The first revision was a redirect to
Cryptic 20:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC) [reply
- Restore redirect The first deletion itself was flawed because there was a non-A5 version (the redirect) the first deleting admin should have reverted to instead of deleting. The second deletion was flawed because it ignored
WP:ATD which said to redirect instead of deletion. That said, I think the best way forward is to restore the redirect only per above and if someone wants to create a new article, they can always do so later. The text of the deleted article is completely useless for this though, if I may say so. Regards SoWhy 16:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC) [reply
|
