Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT slogans


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

LGBT slogans

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No significant coverage. Tagged not notable since 7/09. Lionelt (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and Expand I've added references for most of the slogans. The topic itself is notable enough and it should be reformatted so that it is written in the style of Anti-LGBT slogans. Silver  seren C 11:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with Silver Seren. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Despite the references, the article right now does look like listcruft and trivia, so it should possibly be rewritten, but it does pass WP:GNG. By the way, the nominator seems to have a history of problems with LGBT-related articles. Erpert (let's talk about it) 15:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I second the need to rewrite. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Hmmm, kinda looks like we're having trouble coming to a consensus. Lionelt (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh...no, we don't. Everyone but you says it should be kept. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming good faith and think that he was making a joke. Silver  seren C 06:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. *pokes* Should we just let it snow and be done? Silver  seren C 03:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep some contributors might think documenting slogans like this are beneath notice. But this kind of information is considered important by historians and is routinely lost due to notions it is beneath notice.  Congratulations to the individuals who provided the referencing.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2010 (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.