Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G0y (second nomination)


 * 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 delete. No verification with reliable sources provided. --Core des at 05:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

G0y
This isn't a particularly notable subculture that exists within the gay community. Although the term is loosely attested by a few Google hits (but you'll find far more for G0Y as the first half of a Canadian postal code range in central Quebec), it appears to be a non-notable website trying to build a subculture around a neologism. Fails both WP:NOR and WP:NEO, and skirts the edge of WP:DICDEF, to boot. Was previously AFD'd (see Articles for deletion/G0y), but this version is at least different enough from the first one to not call it a G4. And as for the couple of claims in the previous AFD that it's common in gay chat forums, it certainly doesn't exist in the ones I frequent, so I'd need to see some actual evidence of that. And even if the evidence can be provided, WP:NEO is pretty clear on the difference between citing examples of a word in use (which isn't good enough for our needs) and citing actual verifiable sources about the word. And as for frot, it's also a silly little neologism for a sex act that the G0y movement didn't even invent, and which already has other names in genuine use anyway. Delete both. Bearcat 08:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed Frot. AfD requires one per article. These are seperate topics and will need to be dealt with seperately. Frot has survived AfD once before. Atom 10:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

as well as the previous AfD at this name listed in the nomination. This still isn't well-sourced and should still be deleted. GassyGuy 01:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be an existant culture from a quick google search. James68 12:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Being able to prove the existence of something doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's no original research policy; we need to be able to show that external media sources (i.e. not the website itself) have written about this. Bearcat 20:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As James68. --Haldrik 18:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As per Bearcat. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 18:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non notable original research which is impossible to verify. JoshuaZ 19:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and Move most of the content to frot. These articles apart are useless, together they describe a subculture. CaveatLectorTalk 19:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per James68 &mdash; AnemoneProj e ctors (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Commenters may be interested in:
 * Articles_for_deletion/G0yz
 * Articles_for_deletion/G0ys
 * delete Also, check speedy criteria 4. This article is not a substancial improvement over prior deletions, and simple renames (G0yz/G0ys/G0y) appear to be an attempt to get around this problem.  This same subject has been deleted before, and nothing has changed in it to make it more notable.  --Jayron32 06:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or move content to frot. --142.163.78.108 10:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable now, but if it becomes notable in the future take it to deletion review and may be it can be re-created. The consensus here seems to be in favour of deletion. As of today, there doesn't seem to be anything that has increased its notability. --SunStar Net 10:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.-- Kf4bdy talk contribs 18:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above --66.32.66.195 19:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Especially the self-described straight females, right? A few things to keep in mind: WP:CIVILITY dictates that it would be a good idea not to make accusations against other people expressing opinions. Another is that, when you want to keep something, it's best to address the issue in terms of WP policies, whichever are being raised. As of right now, the one in question is verifiability. The charge is that this has not received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. If you can show that this is not the case, then you'll have many more people swayed than by making blind accusations. GassyGuy 06:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Z388 03:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep this is concise and true to the g0y philosophy why allow gays who are afraid of our message to delete what a large subset of guys identify with. I Personally think this discrimination by the gay community needs to stop. I see it all day long monitoring the Yahoo answers GLBT section. Keep this and let us have our space we do not try to remove the gay section. This is rediculous to even have this discussion.
 * What discrimination? Chances are, Anonymous, that you're White, cisgendered male and of an income that can be described as Middle or Upper Proletarian Class and you also probably "look straight".  Gawd, this is like when that girl friend of mine who runs a Hairy Armpits forum was telling me about this influx of guys who feel "persecuted" by adverts in fashion magazines because a model trying to sell them colonge has a shaved body.  Get over yourself!  This is not about how "gays get to have their space while persecuting g0yz" -- it's about the lack of legitimate and original sources bringing the validity of this article into question.  Wikipedia is not a message-board nor is it an Internet community like LiveJournal where "everybody" gets to have their say (within reason), no matter how asinine one feels another's opinions are.  Wikipedia is an information website working hard to be seen as a legitimate alternative to the traditional paper encyclopaedias -- and that can't happen if every fringe-group with a a dozen yahoo! e-mail lists started claiming themselves a genuine subculture.RJ 17:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge with Frot I've recently taken an active interest in "g0y" as a subculture, but I totally agree that no, there is not enough appropriate evidence to cite as sources for this article.  Of course, most guys who consider themselves "g0y" have a major persecution complex and stupifyingly elaborate conspracy theories about how the Kinsey 6 "minority", together with *feminists* (yes, feminists get blamed for a lot of their "persecution") are all somehow threatened by their masculinity and how all gay men (who aren't g0y, of course) just want to be women.  Considering this, even if this article *does* get deleted, I'm sure, like, the one of them who actually understands how Wikipedia works will try and devise a way around this (again!) and, as usual, do it without citing valid sources.RJ 16:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * G0y cant be merged with Frot, because altho they are related culturally they arent the same thing. A person who prefers frot, can still have anal sex too, whereas someone who is G0y will never have anal sex. One is a specific method of sex, the other is a philosophy opposing a specific method of sex. Not the same thing. --Haldrik 19:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it isn't the same thing, but it can also be argued that gay and anal sex are also topics that have only the most superficial connections, but try getting that across on any of the g0y yahoo lists. The point I'm trying to get across here is that the two topics are related AND that the topics can be merged in an effort to make G0y more relevant to certain persons.RJ 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a community of self described masculine, anti anal men built around the concept of frot. They never refer to themselves as "g0y" but the two communities are near identical. 142.163.78.108 00:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I am sorry to say that after checking thru various LGBT and Bi groups, so far no one has EVER heard of these people. In fact it has been widely suggested to me that this is either some sort of prank or perhaps a money-making scheme, (some sort of sex club/ dating service or something).  While I am not ready to agree with that and will give these people the benefit of the doubt that they actually exist, I can't say that I see any evidence that this is either a "movement" or at all "notable". CyntWorkStuff 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It has also been pointed out that the name is a (mild) racial slur (please see Goy), which adds to the "it's probably a prank" theory. CyntWorkStuff 18:23, 31 October 2006 (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.