Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about homosexuality (3rd nomination)


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 11:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

List of songs about homosexuality

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

(AFD1 and AFD2. The arguments by the deletion nominator for the first nomination were extremely weak, as I pointed out in the second AFD, which was much more valid. I carried out the second AFD nomination myself and the list was saved (as no consensus) on a whim at the end by two 'keep' voters who have failed to do anything to improve the article since, and whose arguments were poor ("do we need citations to prove genre in television in 99% of instances?" = WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), claiming that this songs about homosexuality list could be referenced, but still there is not a single reference or citation in the whole list. It's full of original research, much of it is subjective and littered with personal views. On top of that, it's listcruft, and the subsection "Songs where there is a strong indication the topic is homosexuality or can be interpreted as such" can only be original research. It's a haven for anonymous IP edits from people who probably do not understand how Wikipedia works, as they keep adding their own uncited, originally researched personal ideas of songs that fit into this category, and as such is misleading. Jimbo Wales would not stand for a list like this ("''I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information"). If anyone can find any reliable sources for a reasonably sized list, I'd be quite happy to have this list stay, even if it probably does constitute listcruft. As such, it's a travesty and a textbook example of what Wikipedia is not.-h i s  s p a c e''   r e s e a r c h 16:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 17:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I heard somewhere that articles like this are unverifiable and should be deleted. - eo 17:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I was going to say "weak keep, just remove the OR", but after looking at the article I realized that would mean deleting the entire article. An article based on the section "Songs where the primary topic is homosexuality" would be worth keeping if it was sourced properly, but the only way to get there is to start over. The entire section "Songs where there is a strong indication the topic is homosexuality or can be interpreted as such" needs to be deleted even if this AfD doesn't end with a delete. Pax:Vobiscum 17:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as it stands it is original research and doesn't satisfy any of the purposes under the list guidelines (not a "valuable information source" if it's unverified, not useful for navigation or development). QmunkE 17:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's unreferenced. Kill, With fire. Moreschi Talk 17:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Destroy with tuning fork Tom e rtalk  22:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is pure original research with no reliable sources &mdash; in fact, no sources at all. Conceivably, a decent article could be written here, but this isn't it. Kill it and let someone else start over in accordance with policy if they want to try. *** Crotalus ***  00:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: Don't people have blogs for this kind of thing? Unbelievable. WikiFishy 01:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - keeping an article on the basis of "it can be sourced" necessitates that it eventually be sourced. This hasn't, so I tend to believe such arguments are fallacious in this case.  --Haemo 21:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have nothing against LGBT people (the last girl I slept with was bisexual and I met her ex-girlfriend and she was nice), but I am pleased with the way that this AFD is going.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 00:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sure she'd be thrilled to hear that you're spreading the word... Tom e rtalk  02:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I shouldn't use Wikipedia when I'm drunk and get back from a night out, should I?-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 09:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Definitely not. These things happen.  I don't think anyone will mind if you delete your remark and everything that's followed as a result of it, however...including this.  (I know I won't object...)  Cheers, Tom e rtalk  09:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete save it for gag sites Bulldog123 11:46, 7 May 2007 (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.