Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/G0y (second nomination)

Fascinating: A group that has well over 100,000 members on Yahoo alone is alleged to be a "non-thing" by certain individuals -- many of which have the very character traits that these "g0ys" distinguish themselves from to begin with! If Hitler had only had such wisdom! "Jews? I know of no such group? Oh - there were some silly Germans who set themselves apart because of their beliefs -- but we decided that they didn't exist as a distinct group after all!" LOL! Maybe these g0ys should trademark their logos & prevent Wikipedia from publishing the term in the future! Now THAT WOULD BE FUNNY!


 * Only two people have contributed to this debate who identify on their user pages as gay men, and neither of us has revealed anything about our sexual preferences — so exactly what character traits are you imagining that anybody in this debate possesses? I, for one, am just about the last person who could possibly be described as conforming to mainstream gay culture; mainstream gays sure as hell don't listen to Broken Social Scene, The Arcade Fire or System of a Down, for one thing. And besides, a cursory search of the Yahoo group reveals nothing even close to 100,000 members. And furthermore, Wikipedia's verifiability policy specifically states that being able to prove the existence of something isn't enough — you need to be able to show that real media sources have published something about the g0y subculture. If a Yahoo group is your only source, then you're on the wrong side of Wikipedia's no original research policy. Bearcat 19:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My previous comments removed here. The page may come down, but g0ys will continue to exist. That fact remains.—Patrick93001 05:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd really love to know where in this debate I've said anything that could possibly be construed as either pro- or anti- anal sex. That's simply not the crux of what this matter is about; it's about the verifiability of this as an actual topic of social or cultural discourse. The distinction between "gay" and "g0y" appears to exist only in the minds of a relatively small group of people who've chosen "g0y" as an alternative identity; it doesn't exist in "mainstream" gay culture (I've never encountered anybody actually discussing this as a cultural or social phenomenon) or in the media. It simply doesn't exist in even the most minimally notable outpost of the sociocultural radar. What it matters to me is that I'm a Wikipedia administrator who has responsibility for making sure that articles on this resource conform to Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, notability, NOR and NPOV. Bearcat 06:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You must understand that Patrick93001 has a serious persecution complex and many conspiricy theories about how "teh EEEEEEEEEVIL gAyz AND TEH FEMINISTS!!!" ummm... are uh... working in cahouts to rob him of his masculinity.  He can go on and on for days about how "g0y" is, in "reality" the "unsung majority" or something and it only makes any amount of sense to him and a few other kooks in the Internet.  After all, anybody who has *any* reason for not wanting to give g0ys.org some Internet exposure *must* have something personal against the "movement" in and of itself -- rather than something simple, like on Wikipedia here, where it's a matter of article policy and lack of sources rather than anything truly personal. RJ 17:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)