Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twink (gay slang)


 * 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 of the nomination was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Twink (gay slang)
This is an unverified and non-notable neologism which at best belongs on wiktionary. The unsourced image should also be deleted. Nooorii 07:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

*Delete. NN. Dionyseus 07:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Surprised this made it to AfD; this is an extremely popular and widely used term in the gay community. It's a kind of a reverse of bear, which has an extensive article here on Wiki. The article can use some work, but it quite certainly passes the WP neologism test. Consider renaming to just "Twink," however. RidG Talk/Contributions 08:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Twink is already a disambig page, although User:Nooorii prematurely removed the twink (gay) link . Please wait for such action until if and when afd closes with a delete result - otherwise people may think this is a bad faith nomination Bwithh 08:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto for List of pornographic sub-genres link . RidG Talk/Contributions 08:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Argh. On further checking, ditto for List of LGBT-related topics link, Twinkie (slur) link , Bimbo link , Eurocreme link , and several others. Also changing the Wiki link to Twinkie (gay slang) to Wictionary for several porn actors and other associated entries. Unless Noooorii is blithely unaware of the AfD process, this has strong hints of a bad-faith nom. RidG Talk/Contributions 08:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, isn't this kind of related article link deletion typically done by admins in relation to a speedy or afd which was successfully closed for delete rather than a first day user? Bwithh 08:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Further grounds for suspicion about bad faith nom: Nooori's account appears to have been specifically created to nominate Twink for deletion, and to edit out references to the term (with a little incidental editing/deletion nominating of other porn/sex articles along the way). See his or her history. Bwithh 08:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Did nominator at least google this term? 3.85 million hits for' twink gay'. It can be more than dicdef as there's a cultural history of its development, if the article were expanded. Picture should be removed. Bwithh 08:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is a non-negotiable policy. No part of this article is referenced and it should be deleted.  Nooorii 08:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you could have done some research and added some references - it would have taken less time than removing all the wikilinks did. Now someone has to go around and clean up after you. Natgoo 08:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking, per WP:V, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." That said, frankly, if we were to hold every Wikipedia article to the rigorous standard of requiring every fact to be cited, we would be lucky to have .1% of the articles that we have now. The policy is good, but it's certainly not a "non-negotiable policy," as Nooorii refers to it. (Also, I just find it ironic that Nooorii refuses to deviate an inch from the verifiability policy but does not even come close to following the traditional AfD process.) RidG Talk/Contributions 08:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Citing_sources says "If an article needs references but you are unable to find them yourself, you can tag the article with the templates..." (emphasis mine) - Nooorii knows how to use the unref tag, so this whole nomination is all a bit weird. Regardless, I've added some refs, and restored all of the wikilinks. S/h/it must have spent a fun hour this morning looking at gay porn actors. Natgoo 10:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Try Google Scholar and Google Books . Enough verification for you? Bwithh 08:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Nooorii just added a speedy delete tag to the article too. This is beginning to look like a bad faith nom. Bwithh 08:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The speedy delete tag was added first, not second, please check your facts. Thanks!  Nooorii 08:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, well then there's no need for both tags, right? Bwithh 08:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right so I have commented it out right now even though this is as of right now an unverified and overglorified dictionary definition. Nooorii 08:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm beginning to lean more and more to thinking that this is a bad-faith nom. Nooorii - Bwithh added two links to Google Books in the AfD debate, and even a cursory inspection of the results should confirm that this is in fact a notable term. Did you simply not see Bwithh's post, or do you continue to insist that this is an "unverified and overglorified dictionary definition"? RidG Talk/Contributions 08:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep; add references; expand to address sociological issues (in the same vein as bear community, as noted above). Notable and verifiable aspect of the gay community. --Muchness 08:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unverifiable? Would you like me to link to all the gay porn sites with 'twink' in the URL for justification? Perhaps the published book Twink: True stories of young gay men may convince you, if the google search doesn't. It's a legitimate gay subculture/ preference, Wikipedia is not paper, and this is just the sort of thing I'd have been likely to look up in WP if I didn't know what it meant. Natgoo 08:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Granted, the article could use a bit of work, but this is a widely-used word that also has a well-known and well-documented cultural impact associated with it. It's not like, say, a phrase that random people on the Internet use but has no real impact on anything (e.g., lumber cartel, there is no cabal...) GassyGuy 08:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. I originally voted to delete, subsequent evidence has convinced me to change my vote. Dionyseus 08:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would appreciate it if Noorii could comment on his extensive editing (see above) of pages that link to the article he brought up for deletion, as I am still trying to determine whether this is indeed a bad-faith nomination or simply lack of knowledge of proper AfD procedures. RidG Talk/Contributions 08:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and send Noorii to bed without supper. Danny Lilithborne 09:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Definitely notable, and not really a neologism. Judging from the nominator's edits, I'd say this is a bad-faith nom. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 13:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep it's important to keep all slang terms here, just because they're considered colloquialisms does not mean that they do not perform an important function with regards to communication. And communication and knowledge lead to peace and acceptance.


 * Keep and how! Widely used term and idea - article seem okay. WilyD 16:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Bwithh. Surprised there are people out there who have never heard this slang before. —Caesura(t) 16:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, agree the term and concept are important and widespread, the most convincing delete argument for me is that this is more a definition than an encyclopedic entry, but I think the article barely makes it over the line into more than a definition, and more importantly provides the scaffold for further encyclopedic additions. I am certain that there is more to say about twinks and twink culture.--Joe Decker 17:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep close to a bad-faith nom. Carlossuarez46 19:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep agree that this is close to a bad-faith nom. SchmuckyTheCat 23:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, although the unsourced image should be tagged and/or deleted. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, not a speedy candidate. Looks good now, would have been fine before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the sensible contributors. --New Progressive 12:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, a common and defining term in use for over 40 years inside the gay community. Glowworm62 14:39, 14 July 2006 (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.