Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queer people of color

Queer people of color

This is original research and reads more like the outline of a paper than an encyclopedia article; even as a list, this would probably end up being largely conjectural and would probably still qualify as original research. Delete. JDoorj a m Talk 00:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gay Nigger Association of America and delete. Erik the Rude 00:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. dbtfz ^talk 01:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Cleanup My first guess was ixnay as well, but Who'd have thunk - 17K ghits, a lot of them on serious edu websites. We have much less notable orgs on WP.Bridesmill 01:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand the objections. Like everything else, the article should be confined to verifiable information; why would it "probably" end up as original research? In no case redirect to the GNAA troll farm; that is a terrible suggestion. Lambiam ^Talk 01:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. I also think that the suggestion to "merge" to GNAA is incorrect and most likely a bad joke.--Jersey Devil 03:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research and redirect to GNAA. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect. This is unrelated to the trolling group. TeKE 03:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought User:Erik the Rude's vote was a joke, but for the record, do not redirect. -- unsigned comment by JDoorjam - DarthVader 03:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Nortelrye 05:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Hetar 06:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 12:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but don't redirect, it has no connection to a trolling group. -- Mithent 12:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is clear evidence that this has no relation to Gay Nigger Association of America and can be expanded on to be more of an "article" if many agree that it resembles an outline.Anarkafrica 15:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion that this is an "organisation" (as others seem to be suggesting), just a term and some OR. 612 unique g-hits. [1] Deizio 15:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks very much like original research. But, do not redirect to the GNAA page. --Andy123(talk) 15:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but greatly expand and beef up the citations. This is a noteworthy topic. As for OR, there's enough in the article that is not OR that the article should not be deleted on that ground. Doctor Whom 16:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was joking, by the way. I thought it was such a spectacularly bad joke that no one would take it seriously. This article should be deleted because it may not be entirely obvious who is "queer" and who is a "person of color," and therefore some interpretation (i.e., original research) may come into play. Erik the Rude 16:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By that token you presumably are of the opinion that African Americans in the United States Congress, Black Indians, List of African Americans, List of African American jurists, List of African-American mathematicians, and List of Black Jews should all be deleted. Lambiam^Talk 18:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've got no problem with deleting those entries. Bring them up for a vote, and I'll vote to delete. Erik the Rude 18:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]