Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AKFD (2)

The vote on one of the redirects and what was the article (now also a redirect) is continued at Talk:AKFD/redirect.

Redirects

 * The following pages redirect to Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead': AIDS Kills Fags Dead slogan, AIDS Kills Fags Dead, AIDS kills fags dead, AIDS Kills Fags Dead (slogan), Slogan:AIDS_Kills_Fags_Dead, Slogan_'AIDS_Kills_Fags_Dead
 * Delete (see below) -- Someone else 17:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Please read past discussion at Talk:AKFD/redirect and express your opinion there on a per-redirect basis. Martin 19:11, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Or express it here. Before more subpages are spawned. -- Someone else 02:09, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Well, if anyone expresses their opinion here, I'll move it there for them. Martin 23:47, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I deleted the two the were only created recently as 80% of the votes at Talk:AKFD/redirect were to delete them. Angela 16:09, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Talk pages

 * The following are talk pages archiving discussions of the AKFD article: Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/redirect, Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/existence, Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead', Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/title, Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/merge. Also related, but discussing seperate content, is Talk:Anti-gay slogan.
 * The subpages have been renamed Talk:AKFD/... . The rest of the discussion on this is at Talk:AKFD/title. I didn't know whether the same should be done for the main Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' page so that one still exists. Angela 14:20, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The original article

 * Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'
 * Delete. Such of it as is informative, should reside at homophobic hate speech. Also, see below. -- Someone else 17:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * what do you want to do with the article information itself? Delete it, or factor it into another article? orthogonal 17:53, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * It would go well into homophobic hate speech, I think. -- Someone else 18:12, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I would say the existence of an article homophobic hate speech is almost unavoidably POV. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:45, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion. If you want to merge and redirect it, you don't need VfD for that, though please read past discussion at Talk:AKFD/merge before doing anything drastic. Martin 19:11, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * You certainly need VfD if you want to delete the redirect, don't you? 10 pages with AKFD in their titles pointing somewhere is still gonna rack up the google hits. -- Someone else 19:56, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Sure, but first see if you can get agreement for merging the content, at Talk:AKFD/merge, then merge the content, and then see about deleting the resultant redirect, if you still feel that's necessary. IMO. Note that redirects don't "rack up the google hits" - google is smart enough to only give one hit, no matter how many redirects we create. Martin 23:04, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Is this junk still on? This POV rubbish has had more comebacks than Bill Clinton. Please delete it. FearÉIREANN 23:09, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I agree with Martin. Discussing whether or not the article should be deleted as a redirect is academic, because it isn't a redirect. -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Discussing why we need (exact count hard to determine...15?) pages of discussion seems not so academic.--Someone else 02:09, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think it is encyclopedic.  The term is not all that common and it originated here as trolling, article has taken on a life of its own, deleting it will improve Wikipedia.  Daniel Quinlan 08:24, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. JDR
 * My vote for article is to delete. Fuzheado 00:06, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete these all, (as above). --Minesweeper 23:41, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
 * The slogan has been dealt with in an NPOV way (I think if anything, people will surmise that the people writing the article have an anti-hate-speech bias). Plus the slogan was real and appeared in multiple places before anyone came along and wrote a Wikipedia article about it. So the slogan is a legitimate topic. It also is a legitimate SLOGAN, and not just a collocation of words. Compare this to "Bush is an idiot". Anyone who thinks George W. Bush = idiot could come up with the latter sentence independently (with idiot being a popular noun of choice for someone stupid, and stupidity being a not uncommon trait perceived in the president). "AIDS kills fags dead", conversely, only evolved once, and everyone else who used the phrase got it from him. The phrase required some originality and wit in order to coin, and the wording is distinctive (a person who wanted to say that AIDS was intended for killing gay people as God's form of "death control" for their sinfulness might spontaneously come up with "God made AIDS to kill gays" or "AIDS kills gays", or even "AIDS kills fags", but a speaker of modern English would not likely naturally come up with "AIDS kills fags dead". If the number of appearances really bothers you, you can get rid of a few of the less likely permutations as redirects (AIDS kills fags dead is an obvious possibility that people might search for, but Slogan:AIDS Kills Fags Dead without a whitespace after the colon is unlikely for someone typing it in in the URL box.) Wiwaxia 00:28, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comments

 * Searching for "AIDS kills fags dead" on the web now gets wikipedia-derived hits in 8 of the first 11 spots. We're not simply reporting anymore: we're actively promoting this lovely sentiment. Time to shove this toothpaste back into the tube. -- Someone else 17:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Promoting the sentiment? Does having an article on Nazism promote Nazism? Having lots of hits for Wikipedia articles does promote Wikipedia, I suppose, but I think that's a good thing. :) -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * This is not like having an article on Nazism, it's like having lots of pages whose titles are Nazi anti-Jewish slogans. Bmills 09:46, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * and that these slogans were marginal until we decided to promote them. I don't think this does wikipedia any favours. Secretlondon 09:59, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
 * Having redirects from every marginal variation does suggest that we want to call special attention to it, yes. An encyclopedia with more entries in its index pointing to AKFD than it does to, oh, say, Nazi, does suggest that the encyclopedia is especially fond of the former, and has little rational planning or forethought about emphasizing important rather than unimportant concepts. The fact that you have to scroll down the bage to get to non-Wikipedia-related hits also suggests we might be inflating the importance of this particular phrase. And not all publicity is good publicity. -- Someone else 00:57, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * And that's exactly what we deserve. If we had left that informative and harmless article alone after it had been written and posted by, I think, Axel Boldt, there wouldn't be anything to complain about now. (Due to all those redirects it's now also difficult to find the original text.) Reading the above comments shows me that right now people aren't even sure what they want deleted -- the article itself or just the numerous redirects. Two more things (again): (1) Writing about a particular subject does not imply advocating it, just as it does not imply opposing it. Please see the use-mention distinction. (2) Is there some kind of guideline on what to do when, after consensus or at least a majority decision has been reached and the matter is dropped, it is revived at a later point by someone who has just discovered Wikipedia? (I can hear voices telling me this doesn't belong here, so I may post my second question again at a more appropriate place.) --KF 09:21, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * To respond to Someone Else's comment about google hits, I think on balance I'm not too depressed if it takes longer for some Nazi punk to find a hate site because they keep getting hits from a respectable encyclopedia with a policy of writing from a neutral point of view. In any case, most of the Wikipedia-related hits are not being listed for deletion, being mailing list posts, user talk pages, meta pages, and other encyclopedic articles like Fred Phelps, Raid bug spray, Matthew Shepard, etc. Martin 19:01, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. As SomeoneElse said, once we start "making the news" and bring up the majority of mentions/hits of the term, we are the ones determining the general popularity of the phrase. This is problematic. Fuzheado 00:06, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't make up the majority of hits on the google-indexed web: it's 84 of a total of 198, most of which are at our mirrors, or in places that nobody's proposed for deletion, such as meta, mailing list, or articles like Fred Phelps. It also doesn't make up any of the 494 hits on google groups. I doubt it makes up a significant minority of mentions in the real world - last I checked, folks who waved anti-gay banners tend not to do so in the context of building a collaborative encyclopedia. Nor are we making the news - neither of the two references to "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" on google news at the time of writing had anything to do with Wikipedia. On a side note, you haven't said what you want to delete, which would seem to be relevant. Martin 22:59, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Well, accepting this straw-man argument at face value, it's not much better for us to have 17% of all the hits on the web. On a side note, I'd propose combining all talk on one page, and delting all redirects. If all the material now resides at "anti-gay speech", I'd advocate deleting all AKFD redirects. That would leave the material at "anti-gay speech" and rid us of our intensive network of AKFD redirects, and stop the emphasis on this particular page. -- Someone else 01:56, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I think its already been deleted, but I think the link from "AIDS kills fags dead" should continue to redirect to the anti-gay slogan article. This is very useful for people looking for articles of all sorts of topics. Wikipedia is not the easiest place to navigate, and things like this help alot. Access to info is good for everyone. Has anybody else read the discussion on Talk:Anti-gay slogan regarding this very issue?JackLynch 03:36, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)