Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No homo


 * 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. I think this is an appropriate application of WP:IAR, since the DYK nomination is under way. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A clarification: Technically, what I meant was WP:SNOW. However, because there is now a "rule" against SNOW closures, I am "ignoring" the rule in order to close it. Normally, the 1% chance of an AfD turning out with an unexpected result is enough to wait 7 days, which causes no harm. But letting a DYK go stale is harmful, however small in extent. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No homo

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism. Article has been speedied several times before (and was indeed salted prior to its recreation). Better suited for Wiktionary. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Admrboltz (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Former speedy deletes relate to entirely different articles, that were pure nonsense. The Wikipedia definition of a neologism is a term about which there are no "reliable sources specifically about the term". This term has been treated specifically in the San Francisco Chronicle, The Seattle Times, Slate and The Advocate; all reliable sources. If nominator wants this article deleted, he should come up with a rationale that actually complies with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Lampman (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And New York magazine, which I just added. Lampman (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, again, WP:NEO says that neologisms are "words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." It also says that although it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society, and thus to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Exploding Boy (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're making my point for me. Phrases like "on the Internet" and "in larger society" are used specifically to make a contrast to reliable sources. Which this article has. Lampman (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete At least one source is non-trivially about the term, but the rest aren't. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC) The sources are mostly nontrivial, but I don't know if they really provide enough to make this more than a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer , his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean, all but one of the six sources so far deal primarily with the term; Dave Zirin mentions it tangentially. Lampman (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then please explain to me what does constitute reliable source coverage of the term, beyond five articles in highly reliable publications on the subject. Because I seriously don't know what more would meet the criteria if that doesn't. Lampman (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, forget it. I'm babbling again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Lampman (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. An actual, sourced article on a phrase that is even pretty culturally relevant! Recury (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - My initial impression when I saw the article link was "delete", but having read it, it is well-sourced, interesting, and informative. Even in its current state, it is far more developed than a dictionary definition, and it is arguable whether it is a neologism since it was coined in the early 1990s according to the source. Google News has 1,700+ hits, most of which appear to be related to this phrase, and there are even a couple in Google Books. WP:NEO does not apply to terms that are notable in their own right through reliable third-party coverage. Strikehold (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can recommend Wikipedia Reference Search, which is calibrated to search only reliable sources. A search I did found that "no Homo erectus is known to have made such sophisticated tools", which is good to know, but not exactly relevant... Lampman (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  05:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  05:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  05:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge there are two parts to this article, one of them is a dictionary definition of the term (which doesn't belong in Wikipedia). The other part is a potentially encyclopaedic discussion about attitudes to homosexuality in hip-hop culture, which should be merged with hip hop culture and this title redirect there. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Of course part of the article is a definition of its subject, just as is any proper encyclopedia article. I disagree with a merge, as this subject wouldn't even merit a parenthetical mention in hip hop culture due to its comparative weight. To me, that move would be akin to merging Surtsey into Europe. I see no policy or practical reason for merging if this subject is in fact notable, which you seem to concede. Strikehold (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The definition here goes beyond explaining what the subject is and wanders into the etymology, etc. of the term (Wiktionary is about terms, Wikipedia is about concepts). As for notability, the cultural aspects part has limited notablility as a part of an article cultural aspects of hip-hop, or perhaps as an article about attitudes to homosexuality in popular culture, but not enough for a standalone article. An article about the term "no homo" rather than the concept it embodies, is not Wikipedia material and should not be more than a redirect to where the concept is discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Lampman and Strikehold. Owen&times; &#9742;  11:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The content is fairly encyclopedic and relatively well-sourced, though of course it could use strengthening. The fact that the sources are journalistic rather than "scholarly" strikes me as odd, but that's certainly no reason for deletion. The page is currently an orphan, but there seem to be some pages (e.g. Tori Fixx, Sexual norm) that arguably should have links to this page. Also, the formerly speedy-deleted pages were cited as 'nonsense'; the current page is not that. Cnilep (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, sounds like a notable phenomenon and is well sourced. --Alynna (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NEO


 * Undeniably meets this requirement. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Lampman, Strikehold, Cnilep, and Floydian. The article has context, history, usage and contains valid citations within the text. The New York and Slate pieces are specifically about the phrase, the concept, and it's use. Clearly passes WP:NEO as a reason to keep with multiple WP:RS. — Becksguy (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable enough for sourcing and written NPOV. -- Banj e  b oi   04:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is both sourced and culturally relevant Billbowery (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A well references cultural phenomenon.  D r e a m Focus  09:34, 10 August 2009 (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.