Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U-Haul lesbian


 * 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. Cbrown1023 01:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

U-Haul lesbian

 * — (View AfD)

Transwiki'd already. This is an article about a one-liner. I checked the refs, they are actually more or less generic references to U-Haul and would apply equally to anyone with a bad relationship history. I didn't see the exact phrase "u-haul lesbian" in them, although maybe I miseed it. This looks like a distillation of primary sources and a one-line gag combined to make what looks like an article but actually isn't. Guy (Help!) 19:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This article was previously nominated for deletion under the name U-Haul (lesbian). - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 09:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The transwiki was bizarre given that phrase "U-Haul Lesbian" is a multi-level and complex phenonmen that goes way beyond a "dictionary definition". The article has made verifiable attempts to cover the term as a sterotype, a description of the dating behavior as well as the GLBT cultural signifigance it has following its orgins in gay humor. The term is given serious treatments in several of the references such as Dr. Pimental-Habib & Christopher Alexander's two books. Agne 19:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly enough references and content. Maxamegalon2000 19:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please actually read the content and review whether these sources actually cover this topic—they don't. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep although I would agree with the nominator that a number of the sources are deficient, e.g. they discuss lesbian relationships and make one reference to U-Haul. But overall it passes. --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Passes what? All the sources are trivial mentions, and the article is half dictionary definition/joke and half weakly sourced speculation. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep — although, as Dhartung and Guy say, the existing sources aren't quite up to snuff could be improved, the concept is wider than a dicdef and I'm sure that better sources could be found. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the relationships section, which is about everything that's not a dictionary definition, or a joke. It is not neutral, it is not well-sourced. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not neutral, but the sources look OK to me, at least as a starting point. Did you look up the print sources before dismissing them? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have. The Houston Voice article says nothing about this subject at all.  The Metro Weekly article simply repeats the joke without any further analysis of what a U-Haul lesbian is, as do all of the Seattle Weekly article, the first article in The Advocate, the book by Hardin, the book by Stevens (which is actually discussing sexually transmitted diseases), and the book by Alexander (which is actually discussing the subject of "merging in lesbian relationships", per the title in boldface at the top of the page).  The second article in The Advocate actually talks about U-Haul trucks, not U-Haul lesbians.  The book by Marcus mentions the joke in a two word footnote and proceeds to talk about the reality of couple formation, which it states to be quite different. Uncle G 13:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep There are about 200 independent ghits that talk about the phrase (have to use both U-Haul and UHaul), some could be added into the sources/references.SkierRMH 22:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks like there are 100, and a very high number of them are on Wikipedia or on Wikipedia mirrors. Which of these are reliable sources? —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The relationships section is just some novel unbalanced research presented as uniform fact. The rest is just a dictionary definition and a joke. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Did you check out the print sources, or just the ones on the web? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, please note that none of the above reasons demonstrate why this should be a separate article. Verifiable information can be merged to Lesbian or Gay slang. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources I examined do mention the joke, but they are not about the concept of "U-Haul lesbians". They are about the feature of some lesbian relationship to which the U-Haul joke is pointing. Whether the woman is using a U-Haul or the back of her pickup is irrelevant. "U-Haul" here means exactly what it means to everyone else in the world; I could easily substitute "moving van" for "U-Haul" or remove the joke altogether and the substantive content of the article would be the same. It seems to me that this substantive content is about lesbian relationships and should therefore be merged to Lesbian. If the article remains as it stands, please delete the Transwiki box. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 09:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That works, too. 80.176.82.42 12:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with AdelaMae. There is no source material about "U-Haul lesbians".  Searching, I haven't found any substantial sources that are any different to the cited ones, and that do more than just repeat the joke.  The cited sources are actually discussing topics such as how to broach the subject of STDs with one's new partner (the book by Stevens), how slowly couples moved in with each other (the book by Marcus), and "merging in lesbian relationships" (the book by Alexander).  This entire article is original research, a novel synthesis of sources in order to define a concept that is solely used in the punchline of a joke.  Anything substantive to say about lesbian relationships should be said in an article on that topic.  Given that most of the content of this article involves twisting the sources out of shape to discuss the joke stereotype rather than the actual subjects that they are addressing in their text, it seems that there's little content to save with a merger that wouldn't require a significant and almost entire rewrite anyway.  About the only content worth saving are the book citations themselves, so that editors can go and read the sources and use them to expand articles on the actual subjects that they discuss. Delete. Uncle G 13:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy KeepThis article needs to be expanded and improved, but it's certainly notable (and hilarious - no offense to anybody).Nina Odell 21:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep is not a valid !vote in this context. Your assertion that it's "certainly notable" lacks a credible evidential basis, as noted above the sources cited turn out to be either trivial or not actuallty references ot the term "u-haul lesbian".  Please cite valid sources for the term as stated and defined or tell us what the title should be. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The concept is certainly out there in the lesbian community, and goes beyond just the punchline to a joke.   The article should be expanded and improved, but I think it's notable enough to keep. ---  The Bethling (Talk) 23:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Per the cited sources, it doesn't go beyond the punchline of a joke. There's no documentation of any such concept as a U-Haul lesbian, and this article is original research that combines various sources that simply tell the joke, in discussions of other things, in order to attempt to define the punchline.  That's the problem. Uncle G 11:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Is notable. Georgewilliamherbert 01:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources whose subject is the topic. Eluchil404 12:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with the article's premise that this is an emerging term for a dating pattern (rapid move in). I can attest to the fact that as a straight man I was still expected to know this term and the joke by 1993 (within LA community).  I don't know whether there are lots of references or not, but at least regionally this is clearly notable.  jbolden1517Talk  16:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia exists to document that which has verifiably emerged, not that which is asserted to be emerging. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * From Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/U-Haul lesbian: "Keep the article - I found it very informative - I am a translator and came upon the term in an episode of ER. The "joke" was mentioned. I am grateful someone compiled it! Ana Linhares;;;" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.238.8.117 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep. I see no reason why we shouldn't do articles on lesbian jokes or any other type of humor, particularly when the joke has gained widespread currency over a long period and speaks to deeper sociological issues. The issue is mentioned in numerous books on the subject, . Hence, easily passes WP:V, which is the only policy issue at stake here. Editing differences should be worked out on the article talk page. --JJay 15:42, 14 January 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.