Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBTQ Americans in New York City


 * 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 merge to LGBT culture in New York City. Procedural close; merged as basically a duplicate article. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 05:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

LGBTQ Americans in New York City

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Badly constituted and illogical article topic. The article is titled as being about LGBT people but nearly all of the content here is about things such as the Stonewall and Chelsea and Greenwich Village and Hell's Kitchen -- content which would belong in the already existing LGBT culture in New York City, not in an article claimed as being about the people -- and outside of that, all that's really left is a random and very unrepresentative list of people's names. (Listed under Broadway: David Burtka, Neil Patrick Harris...and nobody else. As if they were really the only two queers on Broadway.) Worthwhile content can and should be merged to LGBT culture in New York City if it isn't already there, but this isn't suitable as a separate article from that. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Maintain. I'm sure you're kidding, right? That logic is ridiculous, with all due respect. First of all, it's a stub, and a new one at that. It's supposed to be developed, with people adding more names to the list and more information, similar to many of the other demographic articles about NYC. I just started the article, but I can't do all of the work, and by no means is this article comprehensive or complete at this point – it's simply a good start to a fresh article with a very different subject of emphasis. Of course, there can be some commonalities, but there will be mostly significant differences, and Wikipedia policy dictates that all new viable articles with verifiable sources be nurtured in good faith. There's absolutely no reason that both articles shouldn't or couldn't co-exist on Wikipedia. Why don't you add information in good faith, such as other LGBTQ names on Broadway, rather than being closed minded about its great potential (without good reason, I should add)? For example, there co-exist LGBT in the United States and LGBT rights in the United States, and they carry very different emphasis. Castncoot (talk)
 * Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete yes the first half does seem to duplicate LGBT culture in New York City; the second half, a list of LGBTQ people in New York that may or may not survive Afd -- this place is picky when it comes to such lists. LGBT in the United States and LGBT rights in the United States coexist so well because the rights article is so clearly and distinctly defined. You haven't done that: you've created a duplicate place for people to look for pretty much the same info, and that is not how we do things. I would say WP:REDUNDANTFORK applies here, at least for the first half of the article. I wonder why you didn't begin by trying to improve the pre-existing article Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, I wasn't even aware of the existence of the other article until within the last hour or so, when I received the notice on my Talk page. So that tells you that my focus was entirely different to begin with. And the foci are indeed different. Any duplication that is coincident happens to be relevant to the subjects of both articles, and this is seen throughout Wikipedia. If, on the other hand, you believe that there is information which is out of context in one article, then you would selectively carve that material out - not throw the baby out with the bath water, as the expression goes. And I've clearly noted in my passage above that I was the creator. This article has tremendous potential and should be given a chance to be developed to that potential before any premature judgement (like what I'm seeing here) is made. Castncoot (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just added the other article as a "See also" in this article. There's no reason that two articles can't have a similar base but then diverge in two very different ways. This happens all the time in Wikipedia. Castncoot (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the other article now in some depth. The two articles have very little if anything in common. Castncoot (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say any of the content in this article was already duplicating content in the culture article — nearly everything here, however, is stuff that rightly should be added to the culture article. Individual bars are an aspect of the culture article, not of a "people" article; gaybourhoods are an aspect of the culture article, not a "people" article; historical incidents are an aspect of the culture article, not a "people" article. The content here, however, isn't about people apart from the list of names — it's about the culture, and should be added to the culture article if it isn't already there. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as partially duplicating LGBT culture in New York City, Stonewall Riots, Greenwich Village, etc and partially just list of people with their own articles. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There has to be some background to start an article, and another editor has already adjusted for this in the article's edit summary. That's certainly no reason to delete an entire article, which is nascent at this time.This, by the way, is mutually exclusive of the other article introduced to me yesterday, which I had been unaware of and which has a very different focus from this article altogether, notwithstanding the similar title. Castncoot (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion yet on keeping or deleting but, if this is kept, it surely shouldn't be restricted to Americans but include foreigners who live or have lived in New York. Quentin Crisp springs to mind. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your suggestion. I don't think that the notables list (which, by the way, the other article introduced to me yesterday doesn't even address, simply because that is not its focus) necessarily has to include only Americans. As long as the entrant has been or was a New Yorker for a significant period of time, that entrant should be eligible to make the list. Let me look into it, and please feel free to do the same. Castncoot (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you were absolutely correct! He identified with New York to the extent that decided to make a move there permanently. Thank you for your constructive and encouraging suggestion to nurture this new article and help it along to further develop its focus! I have added him per your suggestion. Castncoot (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My comment was mainly concerned with the title of the article rather than whether any particular person should be included. Why did you think it a good idea for it to be about LGBTQ Americans in New York rather than LGBTQ people in New York? I would expect anyone interested in LBGTQ matters to understand the importance of inclusivity. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to the article on LGBT culture in New York City. This article was started in good faith without the creator realising that another article already existed covering the same concept, but it is the same concept. There is no reason why content from here can't be added to the pre-existing article to improve it, maybe including a list of people who have contributed to LGBTQ culture in New York. I would urge Castncoot to concentrate on improving LGBT culture in New York City rather than develop a separate article covering the same ground. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The title was originally started with the intention of being parallel in line to Ukrainian Americans in New York City or Korean Americans in New York City. Hence, the word "Americans" came into the title, but that can be changed very quickly to the title you suggested, namely LGBTQ people in New York City, and I've now created a redirect to accommodate room for that title. What I think would be a more appropriate merge if anything, however, is that the other (near namesake) article could be merged into this one, not vice versa. Please also look at Filipinos in the New York City metropolitan region. That article includes a description of the various Little Manila neighborhoods in the region.This article, even in its nascency, appears to be far more detailed and comprehensive than its near-namesake article. I still think that no die (dice) should be cast so early on, and I urge people to give this article (and the other one as well) a conscious attempt and chance to diverge and to maintain both articles while (consciously) developing them further in different ways, to highlight the differences in concept and emphasis. Castncoot (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Merging, if done properly, treats the content in both articles equally, taking the best content from each, so it makes no difference which way round it is done, and, per WP:CONTENTFORK, Wikipedia doesn't work in the way that you describe, with multiple articles covering the same content. None of what I say should be taken as a criticism of your efforts in creating this article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to respond to you so delayed, it's been very busy in real life. Thank you for your constructive comments. Just to clarify where I stand, I don't really have a problem with the articles being merged, say into a single article named LGBTQ people in New York City. After all, I wasn't even aware of the existence of the other article when I created this one. My only suggestion and request would be to give some time to give both a chance to further diverge, with one focusing more on people and the other focusing more on culture. Clearly this article is more detailed and comprehensive in its depth and breadth as they currently stand right now. Perhaps some communication should be made to the primary editor(s) of the other article, out of respect for their work, to inform them of this discussion and and to gauge their thoughts? Castncoot (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Pretty clear path forward here, it seems... The title needs to be fixed, it's not a history of gay people as a de facto ethnic group in NYC, which would be an encyclopedic topic, in my view. And we already have LGBT culture in New York City, which is what it needs to be fixed to, which makes this a fork... Ergo, it seems that a merge is in order. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, let's merge both articles. Again, there's WP:NODEADLINE. Who does this? (I don't know how to. And also, how do you squeeze a 22kB article into a 12kB one?) Castncoot (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I figured it out. Merge accomplished. Castncoot (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2016 (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.