Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Homosexual and related guidelines and policies

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Homosexual and related guidelines and policies


Although this was presumably created in good faith, I think this it is an ill-formed idea. The title is ungrammatical and anachronistic. The purpose of this page is very unclear and would seem to duplicate the existing WP:WikiProject LGBT studies and various existing content guidelines and policies. - MrX 04:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Also the HGI, and HRG redirects


 * Delete - The page only links to WP:LGBT and its subpages. I doubt this is a useful tool for anyone looking for information. I also highly doubt anyone would find it. I also really have no idea where the I in WP:HGI came from. Achowat (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, needlessly offensive, and also not needed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, based on somewhat fallacious premises about the word homosexuality, and duplicates existing pages. Nsw2042 (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - The page is unnecessary and apparently proposed in part on the premise that non-LGBT people are uncomfortable using WP:WikiProject LGBT studies. Teammm  $talk email$ 05:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as unnecessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_LGBT_studies&diff=587822948&oldid=587808769 my comment] on WT:LGBT. - htonl (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The nomination pretty much says it all. Rivertorch (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Unnecessary. And the justification that Teammm says is behind it is rather odd: if non-LGBT people are unwilling to post on WP:LGBT because they are made uncomfortable, quite why they'd post on Homosexual and related guidelines and policies, I'm not sure. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * delete this seems to be a strange sort of project dab page, that incorrectly groups LGBT issues under a 'homosexual' banner. I don't think homosexual is as offensive as some are claiming, but it is wrong to suggest that homosexual is the top-level grouping which pulls LGBT together. LGBT itself is missing other letters, but at some point you have to go with how the bulk of reliable sources group this community and LGBT seems to be the stable version. I don't identify as lgb or t but have never felt out of place posting at the LGBT board nor has anyone ever pushed me away because I wasn't a card carrying member. Ultimately this attempt at a meta grouping contravenes the purpose of the LGBT project which is intended to be for all, if there are instances of people being pushed away bring it to ANI. I do agree with one point the creator made - that LGBT issues don't all need to be discussed on that project - for example if there was a category guideline for gay people there's no reason it couldn't be discussed at vpp or other relevant pages, but it is courtesy to inform the LGBT project esp if the issue is contentious and needs input from interested editors.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as superfluous. It seems like it is completely contained within wikiproject LGBT.  If the objection is that the title of that group is wrong or offensive or exclusionary or something, isn't the solution to do an RM rather than to create a duplicate page?   AgnosticAphid  talk 23:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The topic of this new page is already covered at WikiProject_LGBT_studies. Perhaps having Homosexuality and Homosexual as redirects to there (we already have WP:Gay and WP:LGBT) would help people find the topic. Redirects can have POV or offensive names. &mdash; rybec   01:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete ungrammatical. Doesn't seem to serve any meaningful purpose. OSborn arfcontribs. 04:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as unnecessary. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  06:59, 3 January 2014 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.