Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celesbian


 * 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 no consensus to delete. Redirect proposals by some are effectively opposed by others. I suggest revisiting fauxmosexual (redirected in 2006 for lack of sources) to see if more recent reported uses support an article on that term, into which this can be merged. bd2412 T 00:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Celesbian

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Slang neologism with one mention in a single press article as a source. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - It seems like a neologism to me, but there are a few additional sources on the talk page. Perhaps we should contact WP:LGBT? NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 22:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral/Comment - 11 google news hits . Not sure if merits own article, but should at least remain in something like LGBT slang Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Depressingly weak keep because it seems to be coming into common parlance for all the worst reasons (whatever they are). I won't be upset to see it go, though.  Almost nominated it myself when I saw it first.  Fiddle Faddle (talk)
 * Delete after reflection. The more I look at this the more I say Wiktionary.  This is a word, nothing more, and as a dicdef it does not belong here.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It's a neologism but we cover those, it's poorly written, which can be fixed and I already posted some refs on the article talkpage. -- Banj e  b oi   00:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to LGBT slang. Ugh.  Bastique demandez 00:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read the article you intend to redirect it to. It has no place there.  This is heterosexual slang for a particularly offensive thing, a non lesbian pretender! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The coverage in Australia has been quite extensive, so I fear this article is still North America centric. See for example Celesbians are the new black.  I don't think it should be merged into LGBT slang because one of the uses of it is for someone who is not really a lesbian but pretending to be lesbian to advance her career.  Scarykitty (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I found a 2003 reference in an offline source. "Between the Covers" Philadelphia Weekly.  "For online language geeks there's the indefatigable Word Spy (www.wordspy.com), aka Paul McFedries, who tracks new coinages practically instantaneously. Take "celesbian," for example (this means you, Tatu)."  Wordspy.com itself dates its first use back to 1998, but in a different usage, of "lesbian celebrity."  I think the evolving meanings alone make this an encyclopedic article and not a wiktionary article.  Word spy.  Scarykitty (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficiently sourced neologism with WP:BLP concerns with regard to suggesting that at least one person is falsely claiming to be a lesbian. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I nuked the BLPvio as soon as I saw it. Should that still really be a factor in the delete? NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 04:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there's still a reference violating BLP in there. But even if that one were taken out also, the article would still be about an insufficiently sourced neologism. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete--it is a neologism with barely a reference to stand on (even if ScaryKitty's is included), and I don't think a redirect to LGBT slang is in order: it's not LGBT slang, certainly not in the way it is used in that Sydney Morning Herald article (even if the author were "G," its source is a mainstream newspaper). Drmies (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with LGBT slang, because, um, it's slang and it relates to LGBT issues. -- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  14:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Reading the article you want to merge it into shows that it is about slang used by gay people, not about slang in alleged common parlance about people who decide they are lesbian because it's good PR to be one today. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fiddle Faddle--I take mild offense at Marshalll's "um." LBGT slang is slang used BY the LGBT community, Marshall. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No offence intended. What I want to do is merge the term with some appropriate article.  If the LGBT slang article is reserved for words used BY LGBT people, then where are we allowed to put words used FOR LGBT people?-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No harm intended, no foul committed. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In Wiktionary. The LGBT Slang article defines the phenomenon with examples, but does not list a dictionary of slang.  Slang does not list slang either.  The words per se go into a dictionary.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reluctant change to keep, since there's apparently no appropriate place on Wikipedia to merge it to.-- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  15:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment We should not hold stuff because there is nowhere else for it, though. That is a recipe for degrading the encyclopaedia.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete there;s no appropriate place in Wikipedia to merge it to, but there is a place for it in Wiktionary. DGG (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.