Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT history in...


 * 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   keep. There is clearly no consensus to delete these articles. Further discussion about whether the articles should be kept in their present form, redirected or merged can continue in the appropriate forum(s). Mojo Hand (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Series of articles of "LGBT history in..." by User:Lugnuts

 * ( View AfD View log )


 * LGBT history in Albania
 * LGBT history in Andorra
 * LGBT history in Armenia
 * LGBT history in Austria
 * LGBT history in Azerbaijan
 * LGBT history in Belarus
 * LGBT history in Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * LGBT history in Croatia
 * LGBT history in Cyprus
 * LGBT history in Estonia
 * LGBT history in Georgia (country)
 * LGBT history in Kazakhstan
 * LGBT history in Latvia
 * LGBT history in Liechtenstein
 * LGBT history in Lithuania
 * LGBT history in Malta
 * LGBT history in Moldova
 * LGBT history in Montenegro
 * LGBT history in Norway
 * LGBT history in Portugal
 * LGBT history in Romania
 * LGBT history in Serbia
 * LGBT history in Slovenia
 * LGBT history in Ukraine

Series of pseudo-stubs of "LGBT history in..." by User:Lugnuts are entirely unnecessary and duplicates existing extensive articles, for example data from LGBT history in Malta (1973) exist in main article of LGBT rights in Malta. The same with the other articles. All of these are the same pseudo-stubs, differ only by date and duplicate information from the main articles. Were created by a single user within last 72 hours. Should be removed using a template {Speedy delete} but author reverted it. So, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. In my opinion the best option is Remove all or redirects (similarly as did administrator DESiegel). Subtropical -man  talk   (en-2)   20:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - only issue is that those articles haven't been tagged for deletion. Regardless of how new they are, readers looking at those new articles would have no idea they are up for deletion. Suggest adding the relevant templates to each article. Stalwart 111  22:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See behavior of user:Lugnuts, I suspect that if I insert templates to this articles, my edits will be reverted by author - user:Lugnuts. I do not have time to deal with such individuals. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   15:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF aside, not informing the community of your nomination to delete an article may result in the AFD being speedy-closed as invalid. Best just to follow the basic instructions at WP:AFD for group nominations. Stalwart 111  15:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment It is also considered courteous to inform the article creator, User:Lugnuts about this discussion by using the standard notification template on their Talk Page. Liz  Read! Talk! 03:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep all and close  None of the articles are actually tagged for deletion. I've asked the nom to discuss the articles on the relevant talkpages, but has refused to do so. There may be some overlap, but these are different articles from the LGBT rights articles. A good example is how LGBT rights in Finland is different from LGBT history in Finland. These stubs have been created to populate the redlinks in the template, which already had half-a-dozen or so blue links before I started creating these articles. Finally, per WP:BEFORE, 1.If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. All these article can be expanded to include a detailed timeline for the country it relates to. At worst redirect to the "rights" article as a possible redirect.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You as author should not vote for leaving your own articles. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   14:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You have no clue how AfD works, do you?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. You as author should not vote for leaving your own articles. Comment ok, but not vote. If you gave a vote, I also. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   15:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to read how AfD works. Please.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 15:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You also. PS. Please quote the sentence that my vote is prohibited and allows you to delete a post of another user. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   15:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Subtropical-man has been removed by the Subtropical-man. Subtropical -man  <span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:left;"> talk  <abbr class="abbr" title="intermediate level of English" > (en-2)   19:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * READ WP:AFD, Subtropical - It clearly states "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line."  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I read it but this is my comment!!!, you have no right to change it or remove. WP:AFD do not write anything about removing and changing posts by other users. AFD write only "should" - not "must". I have the right to write comments. Subtropical -man  <span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:left;"> talk  <abbr class="abbr" title="intermediate level of English" > (en-2)   19:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For the last time, read WP:AFD, the bit at WP:DISCUSSAFD. The bit I quote is about repeating your delete vote, which it clearly states do not do as you are the nominator.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha, got to love the irony of the userbox on your page "This user is an inclusionist"  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm an inclusionist, this is my first request to AfD. Why? This is useless pseudo-stubs with only one sentence which duplicates the information from the main article. Absurd. Absurd. Absurd. Subtropical -man  <span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:left;"> talk  <abbr class="abbr" title="intermediate level of English" > (en-2)   20:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, your support for your own deletion nomination is assumed. You seem to have plenty of time to duplicate your opinions here but still haven't taken time out to add deletion nomination templates to each article. I'm tempted to boldly non-admin close this AFD as invalid if you can't/won't do so . Stalwart 111  15:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. See, not so hard. Stalwart 111  15:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I "support own deletion nomination" as well as author - user:Lugnuts support leave own articles :) If user:Lugnuts remove own vote, I also do it. And yes, articles are marked :) Subtropical -man  <span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:left;"> talk  <abbr class="abbr" title="intermediate level of English" > (en-2)   15:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Most certainly educational and encyclopedic. Good deal of sustained secondary source coverage over time, in a preponderance of multiple reliable references. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The rights articles usually discuss history, so unless there's any obvious history content that doesn't belong to the rights articles - redirect. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Joy; one-sentence articles don't make much sense. The content can be moved to a separate article when there's enough of material. --Eleassar my talk 15:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Playing devil's advocate here, if I expanded an article by adding another sentence, would that be enough? Where's the cut-off for saying "yes, redirect it" and "no, there's enough content". ;-)  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As a one-sentence or two-sentence paragraph, it doesn't merit its own article. When it gets longer (a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article), it may be summarized in the main article and treated more precisely in its own article. See WP:SPLIT. --Eleassar my talk 21:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment note that has been blocked for 48hrs for disruptive edits across multiple country templates by removing both the LGBT history and LGBT rights links.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect for now - I compared LGBT rights in Lithuania with LGBT history in Lithuania. The first article actually has far more information on the LGBT history than the latter. I think the test here is that the LGBT history articles need to be more informative about LGBT history than the rights articles in order to stand on their own, otherwise, we're directing our readers away from a better source for the information they're looking for. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep all. if anything the LGBT rights in ____ articles should be merged into the LGBT history in ____ articles, as the contemporary LGBT history of every country is intertwined with its rights for LGBT people. However the rights of LGBT people is not the full history, by any stretch of the imagination. History would also include notable events and people that may only be indirectly connected to LGBT rights, and that is subject to who is doing the interpretation of events. In essence we are suggesting by removing the history of LGBT articles, that the only thing notable is the struggle for their human rights when that is only one reported on aspect. Which is a false POV. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle, but if we're going down that route, we should probably copy over all the relevant history information from the rights articles. Expansion will, of course, be necessary after that, but, y'know, there is no deadline and all. I just don't quite like the idea of having more information on the subject in a different article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , note that articles have been reported to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion because currently this useless pseudo-stubs with only one sentence which duplicates the information from the main article, not because they are not encyclopedic. Subtropical -man  <span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:left;"> talk  <abbr class="abbr" title="intermediate level of English" > (en-2)   18:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The main concern is for future development. By deleting the parent article LGBT history in ____ we are suggesting that the only notable content is regarding the contemporary issues of LGBT rights. The modern movement for LGBT rights was sparked in 1969, but LGBT history traces back to the origins of civilizations, verified in most cultures. I think the LGBT rights in ____ articles should be summarized under a section for contemporary rights, and the parent article peppered with other logical sections for others to expand. From what I've read about Wikipedia, the majority of content is anonymously added. It follows that the structure of an article that needs expansion will encourage additions, rather than the absence of the parent article completely. Additionally each of those parent articles could have a section just for LGBT people of that country, which we already have in the categories. Likewise we have categories for LGBT culture, which would feed LGBT history, not necessarily LGBT rights. What we have is a set of articles thats subject areas need expansions on, not deletion, or merger. And the likeliest best way to do that is to have an existing structure for willing editors. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're reading too much into the process of deletion of articles, let alone the compromise solution of redirecting them. A lot of topics have potential, but that doesn't mean that gobs of sub-stubs are the best way to approach the issue. If someone is actually willing to do some work on writing these history articles, these sub-stubs provide hardly any actual structure. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem with WP is that only a small amount of editors actually create brand new articles. My own experience shows that once an article (no matter how small) actually exists, editors are willing to add to it, rather than starting from scratch. Is this one-liner any less valid?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm reading too much into this at all. We're looking at the likelihood of this content existing, and being added to, when there is no structure at all for it to exist, versus easily adding to it where a vacuum exists and they have a place to share information. This is at the very basis of collaboration, a structure that encourages participation. Is there a rule that says a stub has to have a set amount of information? Or only that it is indeed a notable subject? No one is seriously suggesting these articles are not on a notable subject, only that their humble starts are too humble. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep all - I was involved in the initial technicalities of this AFD and in a discussion with the nominator about that. But keeping an eye on it has motivated me to actually opine with regard to the articles in question. Sportfan5000 is right - there is a significant difference between the subjects LGBT history in ____ and LGBT rights in ____. Not all history relates to the issue of rights (significant figures, events etc) and not all rights-related issues are significant enough to be considered part of that country's LGBT history. The two are significantly different and there's no reason we shouldn't have coverage of both. The suggestion from the nominator that the articles are, "useless pseudo-stubs with only one sentence which duplicates the information from the main article" (a claim which has been repeated several times) doesn't hold water. Even if that were true, it's not a reason for deletion - it's a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem. There's nothing wrong with creating stubs provided you allow (nay, encourage) collegial contributions from the community to expand them. Length of an article is not a sound deletion rationale. Stalwart 111  08:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge I vote for merging all this articles into one. I dont really see the importance of having as it is today a bit over 200 articles, if we only count UN recognized nations. Add some more who are independent but not UN recognized. As it is today its way easier to read one good article where all this countrys are in. Its easier to read, compare the countrys and so on. If some countries are in need of more writing then just make a special page for that country.Stepojevac (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2014 (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.