Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlfag and guydyke


 * 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. Shii (tock) 01:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Girlfag and guydyke

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a very ridiculous, nonnotable, and unsubstantiated entry for an encyclopedia. Much of it is unsourced and I'm thinking it's original research. Holdek (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, but I do think there may be notable encyclopedic content for this, potentially. With this article, we have a complete mess of formatting, with "girlfag" and "guydyke" related terminology bouncing all over the place; two separate articles would be sensible, for starters. Then there's a few OR statements, although most of them aren't; WP:SYNTHESIS is possible. doesn't mention either term, but not having access to the book, I can't verify if there is any mention at all. Source 2 is entirely offline, but appears to be a mish-mash of two different things, so that raises alarm bells.  frequently mentions the term, but is clearly a primary source (the author owns "girlfag.com") so can't establish notability. Source 4 is offline, so I can't analyse it either.  contains a highly derrogatory alternative to girlfag, but may be reliable.  made me run away very quickly, and appears to be unreliable, all jokes aside.  doesn't mention either term.  definitely mentions "girlfag", but is also unreliable. So, what are we left with? One term that might scrape through notability, with further searching (I'm reluctant to do so) which is "girlfag". "guydyke" is rarely mentioned in the article, let alone any of the cited sources, so that's not useful. The current mess of an article, with its poor title, is not worth saving, even if someone was to write a proper article on "girlfag". This article is also an enormous vandalism magnet - I wonder why that is?  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide. Instead, the goal of this project is to create an encyclopedia." Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, with a possibility for moving, splitting, or merging. The cited sources seem to establish notability for the concepts, if not the labels. (Speaking to one "offline" source, Queerly Phrased does not use the terms [as far a quick scan reveals], but does talk about gender/sexuality identity complexes.) The article needs clean-up with regard to tone, organization, and the relationship of these identities to other non-normative gender roles and the Wikipedia articles treating them. Cnilep (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, with respect, where would you move them? And this article is such a mess that WP:TNT applies. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If, hypothetically, there is reliable support for the notability of just one of the terms, then the article could be moved to that name (e.g. to Girlfag). If, as I suspect is more likely, the concept is discussed more widely than these labels, move to whatever labels are used. Skimming the cited sources, two appear to use "girlfag", two use "fag hag", and the others use diverse terms including "sexually diverse", "sexual dysphoria", "sexual ambiguity", and "transsexual faggotry", inter alia. More sources should be consulted for a 'move' discussion, but that is separate from AfD. Cnilep (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cnilep. There seems to exist some coverage. Even if the article is a mess, our deletion policy requires us to fix by editing whatever can be fixed by editing -like this. AfD is not a shortcut for cleanup.-- cyclopia speak! 09:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-noteable neologism. Jtrainor (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge/Delete. I don't think there's enough reliable-source coverage of this concept to support an article; some of the reliable sources cited don't actually appear to use or mention these terms (eg. "Surrogate Phonology" does not, but does use "faghag"). At most, this would be a mention in Fag hag, supported by the Meyer source ("Surrogate Phonology" should be used in that article too, but that's because it actually discusses that phenomenon). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep/move? Article seems to be describing an identity space occupied by real people in the real world. A minority, to be sure, but if the identity is documented then we should keep it on the encyclopedia. My concern about the article right now is that most of the sources don't use the words "girlfag" or "guydyke", and these are kind of intense terms to impose on the identity if they are not the most common terms for it. If this page is indeed getting attention on Tumblr, as indicated by the banner on top, maybe some of those users who arrive here knowledgeable about the subject could advise on this matter. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the sources don't use the terms that the article is about then how is the identity documented? Holdek (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, good amount of secondary source coverage. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a few URLs for us? Carrite (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's function is not to define terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as a neologism more suitable to Wiktionary. Redirect to Fag hag is also acceptable, but both terms would have to be redirected individually. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable neologisms. Urban Dictionary is thattaway.--> /// Carrite (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Carrite et al. If not, then maybe move to Wiktionary pending some good citations. Zelse81 (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2013 (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.