Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of gay men


 * 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 Speedy delete under G5. Apologies for the confusion below, I misread the timestamps on Jpesch95's block log and thought the block was from this year.  Hut 8.5  07:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

History of gay men

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

We already have History of homosexuality, there seems to be no reason to have a "history of gay men" (could be a redirect of course). It is very unclear what content is supposed to be included in the one article which doesn't also belong in the other, and we shouldn't have two articles on the same subject. Fram (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History,  and Sexuality and gender. Fram (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ask/comment. why do we have History of lesbianism if we already have history of homosexuality? If we have history of bisexuality why not of gay men? I agree it could be a redirect somewhere — Tazuco  PICOL icon Mail.svg 15:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll just mention that I recently blocked as a sock (see Sockpuppet investigations/Jpesch95), so History of gay men is eligible for WP:G5.  In deference to this AfD already running, I'll not take any action on that.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * G5 is fine by me. Fram (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't qualify for G5 because it wasn't created in violation of a block or ban (none of the socks was blocked when the article was created). I agree that there doesn't seem to be much point in having this article though, it would only make sense if there was a load of content specific to gay men which could be included, and while there's one example given (Nazism) that isn't really enough.  Hut 8.5  17:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , how else would someone create an article in circumvention of a block except by socking? Socking is evading a block. Of course an account that's already blocked can't create anything. Per WP:G5, When a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5 (if not substantially edited by others); this is the most common case for applying G5. This absolutely qualifies as G5. Crossroads -talk- 23:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the likelier explanation is that Hut 8.5 missed the connection to Jpesch95 (blocked May 2021) and only evaluated the connection to BretonAmoux (blocked May 2022) which by itself is not sufficient to warrant a G5, or misread the year of the block timestamp, rather than that they've completely misunderstood how G5 and block evasion worked as you seem to be implying. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I have seen that exact idea from another administrator in the past, so I wanted to be sure. Crossroads -talk- 01:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete ignore the sock issues (and therefore not weighing in on the applicability of G5), this is a WP:CFORK of History of homosexuality. I feel there is not much need for a redirect as this is an unlikely search term and the article has not existed long enough that incoming links would be an issue. TartarTorte 02:41, 5 May 2022 (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.