Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straight pride (3rd nomination)

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 no consensus. This is clearly an emotional topic, and in these cases it is sometimes difficult to separate our own feelings from what is best for the project. The keep and delete votes are numerically split right down the middle, and neither side has overwhelmingly better arguments. On the delete side, the arguments that it's a non-notable, unorganized movement and/or a fork of LGBT rights opposition are compelling, but the sources provided by keep voters do just enough to put that theory into question. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 13:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Straight pride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating Straight Pride for deletion, for a number of reasons.

1. It doesn't actually exist. There is no co-ordinated Straight Pride. Sources generally state that "straight pride" is actively used as an example for something that does not exist. I don't believe this is in doubt, but the question is whether the "slogan" is notable. I'm of the opinion that few slogans ever meet WP:N and this one certainly doesn't.
2. Almost no sources actually discuss straight pride, either as a concept or a slogan, but mention the terms in passing - dealing with the aftermath of homophobia etc. The article appears to be a collection of events which are retaliatory to the gay community, where the words are used. As such I do not believe it passes the WP:GNG as it is not "discussed" by sources.
3. The article has been deleted in the past. Although last time it was full of unsourced speculation and this time everything is sourced, the article includes little or no new information.
4. The article is almost impossible to keep neutral, I've seen both sides use it as a WP:COATRACK (which is actually quite nice, not often both sides of this debate share something...)

I've been thinking about this for a good week or so, ever since I first became involved with the article and have been very hesitant to actually put this for AfD because of the merge discussion on the talk page - a merge discussion which currently has no consensus. What's more, there's been some great discussion on the talk page in general and I thank all editors involved who've done a fantastic job with such a sensitive subject.

However, I don't believe this is a notable topic. I don't believe it is particularly appropriate to merge the information into Gay Pride, as it's not actually relevant to Gay Pride in all circumstances. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Content fork of LGBT rights opposition and WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of unrelated events. The concept is synonymous with LGBT rights opposition, and the term exists and is notable solely as a reaction to Gay Pride. What very little there is of use in this article belongs in either of those articles, most logically the former. Even then, it deserves no more than a very brief mention, at best, as the slogan has not received substantial attention in reliable independent sources. None of the sources provided even suggest that "Straight Pride" exists as a concept, movement or phenomenon in either the political, social, religious or philosophical sense except as a slogan used by sporadic unrelated isolated anti-LGBT protests. The slogan itself is not notable and trivial outside of this context, as it has never been discussed substantially in reliable independent sources. As it exists now, the article is an indiscrimate catalogue or list of disjointed, minor and sporadic protests (or rather, mostly proposed-but-never-executed protests) against Gay Pride events of little noteworthiness or relevance that have been culled from Google searches. None of the sources provide make any connection between the individual events and each other, or between the events and a larger cause except LGBT rights opposition in general. Attempting to combine them into what appears to be a coherent movement with an overarching philosophy is not supported by reliable independent sources, and amounts to OR and SYNTH. Selection of the items on the list was carried out by WP editors with no guidance from reliable sources, solely on the basis of whether the protest used the slogan "straight pride" or anything similar that the editors consider synonomous. The composition of the list therefore also is exclusively OR and Synth. I cannot envision the article being expanded using reliable independent sources in a way that does not grossly violate WP:OR,WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTDIR, WP:STANDALONE and WP:COATRACK. Google hits are exclusively trivial, tangential or not noteworthy, at best transient coverage of minor anti-LGBT protests. Despite repeated requests, merge opponents failed to produce any sources discussing "Straight Pride" in a larger sense independent of LGBT rights opposition, and my own search turned up none. Arguments against the merge were exclusively variations of WP:GHITS, WP:INTERESTING, WP:VALINFO and WP:ITSNOTABLE, which are irrelevant, as the topic already has a stand-alone article, namely LGBT rights opposition. Material on the high school cases metioned are not noteworthy in terms of LGBT rights opposition, but might be noteworthy in terms of free speech. These incidents might be merged to School speech (First Amendment). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After one week of AfD and one month of merge, Still no sources have been provided that substantially discuss the topic as anything other than LGBT rights opposition, and none have been found to justify the synthesis of the items on the list into a coherent whole. The fact that the list has largely be turned into prose form is misleading, and the article remains an indiscriminate coatrack list cobbled together from random Google hits and given a fake "history" that is not borne out by the sources, and in fact grossly abuses them. The source used to justify the existence of this article is very careful not to make any connection whatsoever between the handful of events it reports, and is of extremely limited scope, covering only a handful of events at a group of affiliated colleges in central Massachussetts during a two year period. To create a "movement" or "phenomenon" out of this requires a massive dose of OR and Synth. It's like trying to create a "crunch" phenomenon out of a list of breakfast cereals whose names contain the word "crunch", or anything vaguely similar, like "snap", "crackle" or "pop". I confirm my !vote for delete. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep telling us that this is an example of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Could you please explain exactly what content in the article is "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" or "material for which no reliable, published sources exist"? Diego (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources support the conclusion that these these isolated events have anything in common that can be called "straight pride" other than the coincidental, unoriginal and trivial choice of slogans. None of the sources discuss the slogan except in terms of independent unrelated events. None of the sources discuss the topic of "straight pride" as anything that can be described as unified, coherent or general. In short, there is NOTHING that even suggests that article is anything other than an indiscriminate list assembled by WP editors on the basis of Google hits, which is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Now I think you don't understand the OR and SYNTH policies.) Diego (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. nor WP:INDISCRIMINATE for that matter, which is about raw data and statistics, not for chronological lists of prose items sharing a common theme. Diego (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Extensive coverage in sources, including within the article itself. Clearly meets wp:notability. As a sidebar, over 500,000 Google hits for an explicit match search on the topic. (Not that they all suitable for establishing wp:notability, but even what is in the article already is of the type and quantity to exceed wp:notability requirements threshold many times over.) The history at the article looks more like an "I don't like it" situation with a succession of reasonings and approaches tried to get rid of it due to not liking the subject. I first saw this (as a merge RFC) at a notice board and came here found it easy to add content and sources; then participants here immediately started deleting content and sources while simultaneously claiming that it was a problem that it lacked such. Within hours of starting those additions and seeing that there was no consensus to merge and probable consensus to solidify as the opposite ("don't merge") someone AFD'd it. Total time span from starting to add material and sources to AFD was less than 8 hours! Further, per sources, pervasively this phenomena has been a response to (and possible opposition to) special days, parades etc. and not (per se) opposition to LGBT rights, to the extent that sources say many supporters are against "gay pride" parades, days, but in favor of gay rights. So merge/fork assertions related to "rights opposition" have a fatal structural flaw. Various other non-existent standards have been asserted such as that the objects of extensive coverage in sources must all be organized into a single organized "movement" in order for it to be an article. This standard simply does not exist. Another non-existent criteria promulgated is that if "straight pride" came into being as a reaction to something, that it can't be covered separately from what it was born as a reaction to. This standard also simply does not exist. The same for implying a standard that says that if an article would be hard to keep neutral it should be deleted. Possibly more to follow. North8000 (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteDelete/Merge - agree completely. I've now personally spent about 2 weeks arguing for the other side to take it seriously as it's not a vote and we've got nothing but more randoms involved supporting a keep but without stating why.

Further it's being pushed as an equivalent of a movement by combining everything on the web, (no matter how vague) such as "Straight pride"/"Straight pride movement"/"Straight Pride day" into a list of random and unlinked events creating huge issues of WP:POV WP:Synthesis WP:Coatrack. If anything it's been shown by the opposing side that if there is a Straight Pride movement it is disorganized, involves the Ku Kux Klan, and is not promoting heterosexual pride, but instead rallying against LGBT people under an unestablished assumption of them having superior civil rights to heteros.

The group opposing a merge or delete were actively therefore trying to promote this "movement" using Wikipedia as the vehicle and have shown it is actually more a candidate for merge with LGBT rights opposition + Homophobia.

(I assume everyone is allowed to cast a vote here and not just admin, if not then disregard and apologies) Thank you Jenova20 18:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually a vote Jenova, it's a discussion, but everyone is welcome to contribute. At the end of 7 days, an uninvolved administrator will close this and it should be the end of it - we'll hopefully have consensus to keep, delete or a clear direction of how to improve things from a no consensus outcome. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well i backed my position with policies anyway. That's more than the keep side did on the talk page. Thanks Jenova20 18:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Covered by numerous reliable sources, this is a notable subject. This nomination is merely a reaction to a failed attempt to merge this article into some other article. Toa Nidhiki05 18:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much for assuming the motives of my nomination, which I had written out 3 times since I started working on the article. I made this decision off my own back, not as a reaction to anything, and think it's a fair one. I've explained my reasoning above, and would much rather that you actually deal with the substance of the nomination, or indeed the subsequent votes. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a t-shirt slogan, not a topic for encyclopedic coverage. More or less a fork of LGBT rights opposition. If there is ever a movement emerging around this slogan, that would be decisive. As for now — news reports about controversial T-shirts do not an encyclopedic topic make, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -

1. For the same main reasons as stated in the intro here;
2. For this reason: the "SP" content is already under the "Straight Pride" analogy section of the Gay pride article, the stub in question being overkill.
3. For those I stated on the "SP" talk page. By request and for those who'd rather not use "search" for or read the few comments I made on the SP talk page.

On an ideological level, an article that raises isolated, incoherent cases of anti-LGBT backlash into a supposed movement is characteristic of Conservapedia, not Wikipedia, and on those grounds alone it needs deletion. However, I strongly believe that all negative reactions and efforts to counter the LGBT movement and the discrimination and violence against LGBT people must be documented. Thus, while such interventions to expand a blurb into a full-blown article are enough to justify speedy deletion, I strongly support merging.

On a writing/composition level, “Straight Pride” is a clear and prime example of LGBT rights opposition that needs documenting under the correct articles, i.e. under Gay Pride and LGBT rights opposition. Although it may seem obvious, “Straight pride” notions depend on Gay Pride and LGBT rights in their entirety because they are backlash due to the lack of understanding of LGBT issues. In other words, an article on “Straight Pride” would need to go into detail on Gay Pride, such an article being pointless because the Gay Pride article already exists. A simple redirect to a “Straight Pride” or “Opposition to Gay Pride” section is all that’s necessary. The scarce and disparate examples cited as support are purely anecdotal and in no way merit an article. In fact, even the stub is inflated. A paragraph of three or four sentences is more than an ample length.

Following my own time schedule, I volunteer to complete the merges, the more so in that there is other, notable material, e.g. Queen Sofía of Spain’s homophobic comments on Gay Pride, that can dovetail nicely into the disjointed factoids in the “Straight Pride” stub.--CJ Withers (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've eliminated the unrelated, yet interesting, information on pride confusion because it's conjecture and related to LGBT pride issues, not to the "Straight Pride" slogan. Nonetheless, the White student union info added is excellent as it demonstrates exactly what the opposition/backlash rationale behind straight pride is: tit for tat. --CJ Withers (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on Gay pride and had already merged the directly related material here into the GP article. So, fine by me. However, the same disparate info really ought to be merged into LGBT rights opposition, too. You'll see that _all_ the contributors are making such a move entirely possible through their edits. --CJ Withers (talk)

--CJ Withers (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Note that CJ Withers is the one who added the content into that article; it was not already there and CJ Withers, a supporter of a forced merge, added ti to that page so that it would be merged. Toa Nidhiki05 18:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Keep your comments on each vote to yourself, becaue no one here is to challenge or debate a contributor's vote, esp. adhominem arguments because the real topic is deleting a stub. In fact, that's the problem with this issue. Also, the merge was approved my several contributors. Remember, adding related material to improve the Gay pride article is exactly what Wikipedia is about. --CJ Withers (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - My comment is a legitimate point, to inform the readers that the only reason the content is there is because you added it. The way you said it made it seem like the content from that page was copied to the 'Straight pride' page, which simply isn't true. Toa Nidhiki05 21:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to LGBT rights opposition, mostly per Carrite. "Straight pride" is not a spontaneous "pride" movement; it's a form of backlash against the LGBT rights movement. The topic can be covered adequately with a few paragraphs in LGBT rights opposition; there isn't enough well-sourced material for a standalone article. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Or at worst, redirect. For the same reason that White History Month is just a redirect; sardonic "movements" such as this are only notable in the context of what they are protesting. There is no stand-alone, legitimate "straight pride" organization or ideology. Tarc (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteor (very) selective merge to LGBT rights opposition. Sources indicate that it is inseparable from opposition to LGBT rights and to gay pride. However, the article is mostly a list of unrelated incidents which would fail WP:EVENT/WP:NOTNEWS if they were separate articles and don't fail it any less because they're together in one article; non-newsy discussion of the topic is trivial. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge anything useful to LGBT rights opposition. per Carrite "This is a t-shirt slogan, not a topic for encyclopedic coverage." —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The Straight Pride reactionary phenomenon has been reliably sourced. It is a minor, yet notable, response to Gay Pride. The term Straight Pride and its synonym Heterosexual Pride have been used world-wide by those opposing Gay Pride concepts and events. Some Straight Pride supporters merely want to balance the public emphasis whereas others use it as an outlet for their hatred of all things gay. If the article should be deleted, our WP readership would be poorly served as they seek to understand the notion of Straight Pride. drs (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... except that they can read all about it in LGBT rights opposition, assuming we merge and redirect this article. MastCell ^Talk 00:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To take you're point to the extreme, assuming we merged the Moon article with the Earth one, the same could happen there. Or, further, we could redirect all the planets to the solar system article. Is it practical to do any of this? No. We should keep 'Straight Pride' because it is sourced by over a dozen reliable sources and it is clearly notable given the broad zone of usage of the term. It is notable enough for a page. Toa Nidhiki05 00:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not proposing to take anything to the extreme. We don't need to lump all planets together into a single article, nor do we need a separate article on each topographical feature of the moon. When to merge material and when to spin it off is a matter of judgment and common sense, and neither cause is helped by facile caricatures. I think the bottom line is that I don't see enough here for a standalone article. You do, which is fine, but let's not muddle things by claiming that if we delete the standalone article, we're cheating the reader. MastCell ^Talk 04:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: little more than a list of incidents strung together (so it could alternatively be renamed "List of straight pride incidents", though I don't think highly of list articles.) AV3000 (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - Worm and Dominus Vobisdu have articulated it far better and more thoroughly than I ever could have. While "List of straight pride incidents" might be a potential candidate, what we really have is a "List of events where the phrase Straight Pride has been involved" and thats not really an encylopedic topic. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to LGBT rights opposition, per Mastcell. This makes the most sense to me - Alison ^❤ 01:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Strong keep: while not a movement per se, it is a phenomenon. WP:N doesn't require that a topic be a bona fide "movement." In fact the Occupy and tea Party Movements were notable phenomenons long before they were "movements". The sources are clear about what this is. It is (1) pride in being heterosexual, (2) a statement against the double standard/preferenial rights afforded to homosexuals and (3) a counterprotest to Ally Week & Day of Silence. The sources also indicate extreme hostility to this topic in the gay community. Here we call that WP:IDONTLIKE. The content should not be dispersed amongst a myriad of anti-straight pride articles. What we call WP:FORK. This is a topic, with multiple sources, that readers should have access to in one place. To delete this article would at best be wanton deletionism, at worst overt censorship.– Lionel ^(talk) 04:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the comparisons you make appear not to be very similar. the Occupy and Tea Party phenomena were national and global activities all obviously related and inspired by one another. These "straight pride" incidents are simply individual reactions. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really so obvious to me. The phrase "straight pride" is clearly well known and used in subsequent events, just like the occupy folks set up shop all over the place without coordination. The number of articles which show a "straight pride" event following a "gay pride" event are almost mind boggling.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is mind boggling is that you think there is something remarkable or significant about that. Gay Pride events sometimes generate counter-protests. That the organizers of these counterprotests independently name their events "Straight Pride" is hardly original or surpising. Any child could come up with a slogan like that. Your mission, should your choose to accept it, is to provide reliable sources linking these unrelated events together into some sort of coherent "phenomenon". Without that, there is no justification for the article to exist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my !vote from "Keep" to "Strong Keep" per Milwient's rewrite. And yes, rewrite. This article is no longer the stub that was originally nominated for deletion. The closing admin must take into account that most of the !votes were cast when this was a stub: the article now obviously passes WP:N and is probably a class C article.– Lionel ^(talk) 06:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too commend Milowent's excellent work tidying up the article and might even go so far to say it's B class. Having said that, it doesn't change the notability of the topic, nor any of the other comments I, nor any other voter made. I'm sure that the admin can take the update into account, as will all the people who discuss this topic for the rest of the week. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed my not-vote to Keep per the recent clean-up work by Milowent. Diego (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a WP:POV fork of LGBT rights opposition and WP:SYNTH, given its actual contents. There is content enough out there to treat the topic in an encyclopedic way, though; various mentions of the term in books and scholarly articles. If it was treated as a topic described by reliable sources as an opposition movement, then it could be kept; but the list of unrelated manifestations we have now is not a notable topic all by itself and it's better summarized as a section in the main article, until someone takes up the task of creating it properly. Diego (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new background section covers my threshold stated above with an encyclopedic introduction that summarizes the views reported by reliable sources on the topic. The argument by Dominus Vobisdu and others that this must be merged into Gay pride or LGBT rights opposition is particularly unconvincing now; if significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (so no original research is needed to extract the content) were not enough to write a separate article on a subtopic of a wider phenomenon, we would have to merge lots of articles into a really long Everything (which is also a valid merge target in such case). Diego (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/merge. We don't need more than one article on this topic, and LGBT rights opposition covers it adequately. Is there any evidence that this is distinct from LGBT rights opposition? Not so far. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is see below. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Due to notability per [1] [[The New York Times] On Thurday, about 50 conservatives, wearing the white pins emblazoned with blue squares emblematic of "straight pride," gathered at noon , [2] NYT An antihomosexual rall by a student group at the University of Massachusetts to show what demonstrators called 'straight pride', [3] NYT long feature profiled a boy who sued his high school after his Straight Pride T-shirt was banned]], etc. All from just one absolutely reliable source - and more than enough to establish independent notability - the prime requirement here. [4] from CSMonitor shows international usage. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  But at what point does that justify a standalone article and not a sub-section of say LGBT rights opposition ? How much can we say about scattered protests other than where they have occurred and hat they have said? Tarc (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, the majority are covered as being reactionary to declarations of special gay pride "days" and parades etc., not as opposition to LGBT rights. North8000 (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that's kinda the prevailing opinion, IMO. One would be hard-pressed to describe support of a "rally for straight people" as anything but homophobic. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand what you are saying. I was speaking about what the sources in this article say. But as a sidebar note in sorting it out in general, there are many people in favor of LGBT rights but who react negatively to either the tactics in pursuit of that used or to the special arrangements such as gay pride days and parades. The latter seems much more common in this article which is why it would not appropriately fit within opposition to LGBT rights. North8000 (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  So your argument is that people supporting equal gay rights are a minority and the majority of people who disagree support straight pride? Well...that's not biased or POV at all then... Jenova20 16:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand your question but that appears to have no resemblance to what I said. The gist of what I was saying is that the bulk of "straight pride" folks are, with that, protesting special treatment of "gay pride" (such as parades and declaring special days); they are not protesting against LGBT rights. North8000 (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's pure WP:Synth on your part, Collect. Your "one source" is three separate and unrelated articles by the same newspaper. The NYT never even makes the slightest suggestion that these three events are related in any way whatsoever. That's purely your conclusion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Some respondents here have hinted or stated that this article has been difficult to keep neutral in the past. However, after reading it from start to finish just now, it seems reasonably neutral now. I agree with those who think this article covers a real notable topic. I think it would be a mistake to try to shoehorn this material into another article, or other articles.

  No, I don't see this as a "real" movement. I don't see any sign that anyone here, or anyone in the real world, seriously thinks it is a real movement. Rather, it seems more like real world individuals trying to do the real world equivalent of WP:POINT. So it is a kind of hoax. But WP:HOAX says we shouldn't have articles that are hoaxes. It doesn't say we shouldn't have that are about hoaxes -- certainly not when there are sufficient WP:RS that cover those hoaxes.

  As to the suggestions that this article be merged. First, since this is a real topic, one individuals might want to put on their watchlist, merging to any one of the merge targets suggested here erodes the value of watchlists. All those possible merge targets are related. But I might be interested in being advised throught my watchlist of changes to Straight Pride, and not interested in being advised of changes to our coverage of LGBT rights opposition, or Gay Pride, or LGBT rights, or School speech (First Amendment), or homophobia, or Traditional marriage movement.

  Second, it has always struck me, in any discussion where several people suggest merging the article, but they can't agree on which potential target article is the logical article to merge to, that merging to any of them is a bad idea. When the closing administrator picks one of the target articles they have to be doing a disservice to all the other possible merge targets. In these cases it is far better for each of the possible merge target to have a sentence or a brief paragraph of context, followed by a {{see also}} or {{main article}} that links to Straight Pride, and to keep the main details of our coverage of this topic right where it is now. Please don't forget the wikipedia is not paper. It is easier for our readers, at those other articles, to click on the link to Straight Pride if they want to read about Straight Pride, and to not click on the link if they want to ignore this topic than it is to puff up that related article with multiple topics.

  I know some contributors would be perfectly happy having all the other places that currently link to Straight Pride instead redirect to a subsection heading like LGBT rights opposition#Straight Pride. But, in doing so, they are overlooking series technical issues. The bidirectional wikilinks we use here are far superior to the unidirectional links used on the world-wide-web -- but only when used properly.

  1. ordinary wikilinks, from one article to another don't break like the unidirectional links on the world-wide-web. When an article's name is changed we generate a redirection so links to the old name take the reader to the article under its new name. But redirection to subsection headings withing articles is not fully supported. Our wikilinks break when someone edits the subsection heading, even just to add a comma.
  2. I already meantioned watchlists. Our current software doesn't allow putting just a single section of an article on our watchlist.
  3. Our "what links here" feature is a very powerful one. There is no reliable equivalent on the world-wide-web. But it too isn't supported for links that are links to subsection headings within an article.

Per AV3000 I have no objection to giving this article a different name. Geo Swan (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the excellent support for the argument that the stub is disjointed and can belong to more than one article. In fact, it's not a problem at all deciding where it should go because the info here hinges on both articles. For example, both George Washington and the American Revolutionary War articles have no problems whatsoever in accommodating GW's role in the Am.Rev.War. Likewise, LGBT rights opposition can simply have a "Main article: Gay Pride" mention or vice versa. Either way, the issue of where is therefore resolved and the vote is actually which way to merge and then delete the entry "Straight pride", i.e. Opposition w/ See Main GP or GP with See Main Opposition. --CJ Withers (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Just like to point out that your second point is not entire compelling. Changes on watchlists generally give the section of the article that is affected. I ofen use this feature to determine which changes interest me. As for your "hoax" angle, it's interesting, and yes, one of the events listed was exposed as a genuine hoax. But are we talking about a single hoax here, or separate and unrelated occurences of coincidentally similar hoaxes? What would be the encyclopedic value in such a list, espcially since compiling the list would be essentially OR and Synth? What source could be used to unite these unrelated incidents into a coherent whole? The sources on the individual hoaxes do not such thing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your arguments, Geo Swan, but thank you for a well-thought-out and neutral response. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Covered in the press (notable), reliably-sourced, controversial. Similar to Crop circles, different unrelated occurrances have enough similar characteristics that a commonality is established. Similar to the 60's peace movement - a reaction to war - this (much smaller) reactive movement has little organization and has a vaguely-defined agenda. I'm not aware of an "Emo Movement", but we all know what Emo is. Any random homosexual person could define "Straight Pride", as could any member of a college Conservative Union or Republican Club - and their definitions would be very different. Just because this topic is fringe and hard-to-define doesn't mean that it ought to be deleted, though it needs a rather more rigorous approach than it has had to date. TreacherousWays (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the difference is that third party sources talk about "crop circles" in general. they do not talk about "straight pride" in general, only as it relates to having been used at a specific incident/event. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the articles on Crop circles and the peace movement, the commonality is established by reliable sources (actually, I was sort of surpised how well sourced the Crop circle article is. I was expecting a mess like the one here). In this article, however, the commonality is established solely by WP editors. No sources establishing even the faintest hint of commonality have yet been produced, despite repeated requests for a month now. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we don't work at other editors' bidding. I only happened to see this article today, less than 24 hours after the AfD began. We have articles where such requests go unmet for years. You give me too much credit to suggest my recent edits establish commonality not already apparent in the sources I've been already able to incorporate in an hours' time.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely don't keep articles based on some editor's groundless hopes and dreams that someday, somewhere, a source might possibly be found. That's like planning your retirement based n the hope that one day, you will win the lottery. And we definitely don't keep pure OR and synth spun solely out of WP editors' imagination, which is all you have to show for your efforts so far. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a compelling argument, either. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing Milowent's excellent and heavily sourced work worthy of that nasty insult, and you go further than that to say that ALL of their work is " pure OR and synth spun solely out of WP editors' imagination,". That is pretty nasty. North8000 (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh marvel, oh wonder: "someday, somewhere" the Massachusetts. Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth[5] described "heterosexual pride" in general as "a relatively recent tactic used in the backlash opposing les/bi/gay/trans campus visibility" and devoted it a whole section in their 1993 report, narrating how it was used by several distinct conservative groups. Is a government report by a technical commision specialized on the LGBT topic reliable enough, or what? ;-) (The source has been already included in the article). Diego (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except this article isn't supposed to be about "heterosexual pride"; the conflation of that with the slogan "straight pride" has been an unsourced addition that has allowed people to coatrack various things into the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, because heterosexual and straight are not well-established synonyms when speaking of sexual orientation? Is that supposed to be a solid argument proving that the topic doesn't exist? Diego (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because we're talking about a slogan, and even slogans with similar meanings are not the same slogan, and the use of one is not the use of the other. "Best" may mean the same as "Finest", but we do not lump in discussion of "New York's Best" things in our article on New York's Finest. Somethings price may be its worth, but "priceless" and "worthless" are not the same things. Editors have been lumping into the article that is specifically about the slogan "straight pride" items which have no source connecting them to that slogan. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is circular logic. That is founded on the assertion that it's a slogan, not a topic, which is itself what is being argued. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was founded about a slogan, and has always been about a slogan. If you are arguing to support an article that is not about the slogan "Straight Pride", then it is not this article you are talking about. If there is something else that is "Straight Pride" that is not a slogan, then perhaps you should create that appropriately-sourced article and use a disambiguating hatnote to separate it from this. There used to be a juggler who announced that he was juggling George Washington's actual ax; over the years, they had replaced the handle, and the blade. Since the keep arguments seem to combine to having an article that isn't about the slogan "Straight Pride", that doesn't have content attuned to the slogan "Straight Pride", and which should perhaps have a different title, it seems that they are not talking about this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure of your main point or who you were responding to. Most would say that the article is about all aspects of the phenomena. Some are saying that that is narrow or not a topic, but I don't think that anyone is arguing for making multiple articles out of this one, or excluding material from this one unless/until such is done. North8000 (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

except that there is NO "phenomena". its a bunch of random individual incidents which happen to have involved the same phrase. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a statement of the viewpoint of one side of something that is being debated here. North8000 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there were actual sources to support the claim of the existence of a "phenomena" as such, then there would be no need for a "debate". -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nat Gertler: There are reliable sources now that use both "heterosexual pride" and "straight pride" interchangeably, see [6] and [7] at least. So far all valid complaints against the article due to lack of sources have been addressed during the AfD. Diego (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how either of those are reliable sources for the claim. The second is a work of fiction; the former is perhaps reliable for quoting what that one person said, but whether or not the person being quoted with one sentence on the topic is a reliable source for information, even he is not talking about "straight pride" or "heterosexual pride" as slogans that actually exist beyond his comments, and even then he's not clearly saying they're the same thing (if I were to say "A heterosexual pride (or white pride, or Christian pride, or male pride) march would be looked down on", that doesn't mean I'm saying that heterosexual pride and Christian pride were the same thing.) So yes, my concern remains valid. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being a work of fiction does not disqualify a reliable source (Ms. (magazine)) from providing a reliable example for the meaning of the term, as long as the meaning is clear from the text; nevertheless, this is a parody of the very real Brazilian Heterosexual Pride Day (which is called "heterosexual" in reality but described as "straight" in the parody). The sentences "Announcing … The First Annual Straight Pride Parade" and "live coverage of the First Annual Heterosexual Pride Parade!" clearly use "straight pride" and "heterosexual pride" to refer to the same thing.

As for the second source, the exact way it's used is: "if [...] heterosexuals were to bang together and have a "heterosexual pride" (or "straight pride") parade..."; here "straight pride" is in explanatory parentheses stating that it's an alternate name for the same idea, not an enumeration of alternate types of parades as you misrepresent it. Unless you only accept a source literally saying "heterosexual pride and straight pride are synonyms", we can't have any better than those parentheses.

Also, given that it's a philosophical dialog and both speakers are written by the same hand, it's a reliable statement of what the philosopher has to say about the concept. (Having two related meanings for the same term doesn't diminishes it's notability, quite the opposite; it shows that it has depth beyond the list of "unrelated list of events", in special because both meanings have reliable sources describing them as related to gay pride).

Sincerely, I think that your finding something wrong with every source (even if you don't take the proper time to evaluate their nature with respect to reliability), only diminishes your position at this discussion. It shows that your opposition to the article is based on unrealistically high requirements for notability, far above what is usually considered enough for stand-alone articles at Wikipedia. Diego (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if someone puts forth multiple lousy sources, and I notice that they're lousy sources, that's a condemnation of me? If a philosopher who puts one sentence about "straight pride" into the mouth of a character in a fictional dialog is to be treated as an expert, reliable source, what else qualifies? Shall we accept all of Middle Earth as true because Tolkien wrote of it? Could we have something better than that? Of course we could. We could have sources that talk about "straight pride" as a topic and that discuss the terminology. It's not unrealistic to think that a notable topics would have works about the topic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said no such thing. I said that if you make lousy arguments, that's a reason to call your arguments lousy. I made no condemnation of your person. Diego (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence??? That doesn't even make a substantial connection between the few examples given??? Surely you jest. I do like your puffery, though: "whole section" (about a page, very little of which describes "Straight Pride" as a coherent topic, and rather superficially at that). It covers a very rather geographical range for a rather short time frame. On the good side, though, this is by far the best source given so far. Is it reliable? Yes. Is it substantial? Not by a long shot. Is it comprehensive? Minimally? Is it enough? Far from it. VERY, VERY far from it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the proper time to evaluate the source, it's not one sentence. The section is placed in a chapter dedicated to problems faced by young LGBT people together with harassment and violence, which gives it proper context and places it under gay pride backlash. Together with "Shifting Sands or Solid Foundation?" and "Who cares?" by Michael Eliason who explains how the term is related to the sense of self-assurance created by gay pride, a common meaning of a reaction against gay pride is found; Eric Zorn from the Chicago Tribune basically says the same thing in a feature-length column, as does anyone who's pausing to explain the term; at this point, that "straight pride=opposition to gay pride" is a notable fact as established by independent sources. Those references, together with the overwhelming media coverage now in the article give us multiple, reliable sources covering a slang term with the same sense of opposition to the gay pride, which is the topic of this article. Your repeated claim that these isolated incidents are "unrelated" doesn't hold weight in this light when all those independent incidents use the slogan with a consistent meaning that is defined by reliable sources. Diego (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just on that, those two excellent academic sources both state that straight pride doesn't exist. Shifting sands says Heterosexual individuals may express bewilderment at the term "gay pride", arguing that they do not talk about "straight pride" and Who cares says Heterosexuals don't have straight pride rallies. Both of these sources are explaining why gay pride exists, and mention straight pride as something that doesn't happen. The fact that it has happened has made non-notable events newsworthy, in a Man bites dog effect. That doesn't make either the concept, nor the slogan notable. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for basically agreeing to what I said, even if you arrive to a different conclusion from it. The content of those sources is already described in the article telling how gay and straight pride are related and the second is not stand-alone (just what those sources support and the article explains). Given that the notability guidelines suggest us to have articles for topics with multiple, independent reliable sources in detail so that we can "actually write a whole article", I don't think the ammount of sources we have for a common theme at several separate events makes the topic non-notable. Diego (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly I agree, I raised similar points on the article talk page a week or so ago. The problem is that the notability guideline requires significant coverage - addressing the subject in detail. Neither of those two sources do address the subject in detail, but instead mention it in passing (as something that doesn't happen). The vast majority of news stories are about the backlash when a kid wears a t-shirt, or when a rally is announced. They don't discuss the the topic, but just mention it in passing, discussing instead the aftermath. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's just agree to desagree on our definitions of "in passing" (and "enough to write a whole article"). Diego (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(selective) Merge/redirect to LGBT rights opposition per MastCell and Roscelese. Article connects multiple, random, unrelated events, which creates impression that there is some concept that in reality does not exist. Anyway, this is an article of marginal importance and notability and does not deserve whole this attention.--В и к и T 23:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of sources address each of Worm's points. For 1, an article can be about political demonstrations sharing a common name and ideology even if they aren't formally organized as part of a single group. For example, Tea Party movement is commonly accepted as a movement even though there isn't a specific "Tea party". For 2, reading the article, it's all about the use of the specific term, both as a concept and as a slogan, enough that I'm not sure where Worm is getting the idea that it's not. 3 and 4 aren't reasons for deletion - if being controversial was a reason for deletion, we wouldn't have articles about any political movements, and if being deleted in the past was a reason for deletion we wouldn't have ... a Main page... :-). --GRuban (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi GRuban. You're right, 3 and 4 would not be enough reason on their own, but they were what pushed me over the edge. Yes, an article can be about a common subject, but the more academic sources mention straight pride in passing, whilst discussing Gay Pride and heterosexual bewilderment, as "straight pride" isn't something straight people do. So, in that way, there is no Straight pride. When it comes to the rest, in my opinion, it's a case of Man bites dog, and aftermath discussion by local newspapers. The most notable I found was a case about a kid who wore a straight pride t-shirt to school (nothing to do with gay pride, but rather Ally Week) - and was told to take it off, resulting in a first amendment court case. This has sparked a number of articles, but more about the court case than it was about straight pride. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Somebody just deleted 13 references, which I reverted. Even with a massive dose of wp:AGF, deletion of 13 references DURING an AFD is poor timing at best. North8000 (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. Deletion of such a huge chunk of sourced content is unacceptable--particularly when we're working to improve the article. – Lionel ^(talk) 12:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps the person doing such massive deletions could address his/her reasons on the talk page of the article. The edit wars of this article may call for page protection, even at this point. Ever wonder why this article seems so important? drs (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that it has descended into full edit wars. Plus there has been building going on. But a good standard, especially during the AFD is to not remove references, or at least discuss removing references before doing so. The same for large deletions. North8000 (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sufficiently defined as a concept to be appropriate for an article, as shown by the references. The concept that we cannot keep an article neutral is ridiculous--any article in this general area can be used as a coat rack, and many of them have. We watch them, not delete them. I am always a little doubtful when an article that is associated with an attitude most of us deplore is nominated for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to LGBT rights opposition. Contra DGG, this is not a sufficiently defined concept for an article. The article is neutral, but it is a ragbag. Some kids turning up to school wearing some t-shirts, added to a controversial statement made by an insignificant Canadian politician and so on makes a collection of gimicky events with a common theme, but it does not make a phenomenon. While there are sources documenting these individual events, there do not seem to be any sources documenting "straight pride" as a distinct movement or philosophy (because it isn't), and that would be the benchmark for GNG. FormerIP (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A number of sources note that "Straight pride" events are typically organized in direct response to "gay pride" events. No one is saying its a "movement," its a documented slogan and reaction event. The fact that the reaction is not coordinated does not make it an unobserved phenomenon. I am also hoping someone will access non-online gender/sexuality research journals before the AfD is over, the fact that I was able to locate additional sourcing so easily disturbed me.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You just summed up why it should be merged with LGBT rights opposition, and/or Homophobia and Gay pride. Bunch of random incidents protesting against gay rights and gay pride with nothing linking them. Thanks Jenova20 20:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You just summed up why so many !votes here are based on uninformed personal opinions instead of the actual sources. Thanks.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep To me, the two most significant arguments against a keep seem to be WP:SYNTH and the pragmatics of merging. With respect to the first, I don't feel the article is synthetic/OR, for me it falls underneath the "of course" threshold if sources only presented single incidents. Moreover, that isn't the case, there are a few broader linkages evidenced in sources as well, e.g., the Mass. Gov's office ref., the USA Today ref. With respect to the second question, whether it's pragmatically better for the reader to arrange the information one way or another, I believe that a separate article (this one) with summaries and links at Gay Rights and/or LGBT rights opposition is perhaps the best way to present coverage of each topic and not unnecessarily duplicative. (See also this diff for clearer statements of which two refs I was acknowledging.) --joe decker^{talk to me} 05:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- no independent notability, merely a reaction to Gay Pride. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If people are debating as to whether or not it exists and there are sources for it, it doesn't have to exist as a practice or concept, it simply has to be a topic that is covered in multiple reliable sources.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- notable world-wide phenomenon reliably sourced. Merging or deleting only serves the agenda of the IDONTLIKEIT minority. --Kenatipo ^speak! 13:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to LGBT rights opposition - Seems a bit WP:POVFORKish, and I don't think the incidents are really a coherent whole. Some of the material is trivial (an entire section on a vendor seen selling T-shirts, with no commentary or discussion?), some might be useful, but it doesn't really seem to gel into a stand-alone. Another issue is that there aren't really that MANY incidents listed, and it's kind of an obvious slogan, so they could well be independent. 86.** IP (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That section was on commercialization and somebody wiklawyered it down to look like that and then retitled it. The article has been the target of aggressive efforts to remove material and sources during the the AFD. North8000 (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. It is a disgraceful article, so it and its supporters deserve no less. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not very Wikipedian. North8000 (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

its also not very "wikipedian" to defame requiring content to actually and accurately reflect what the sources say as "wikilawyering". -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folks can judge for themselves. Seeing the 11:13 April 6 2012 version of that section before said activity. North8000 (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added information found in the Messenger article by Heywood. Here is the diff is for the record. drs (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't see this as hugely notable in its own right. It is, in the end, a list of incidents, with no clear connections drawn between them. 86.** IP (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, here is the original material which folks felt the need to stifle from the article: "A variety of straight pride products are manufactured and marketed including T-shirts, baseball caps, coffee cups, I-Phone cases, bumper stickers and ties." This was apparently such a radical statement that it had to get challenged, deleted (not tagged) and butchered within hours of posting. North8000 (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, you STILL have not provided a source to support your stated claim. The source you provided [8] talks about a single vendor selling a single merchandise item at a single event. Your (edit to add)insitence on continuing to promote (end of edit) blatant WP:OR is completely astounding making it near impossible to continue to assume good faith on your part. it makes me wonder how many other sources are you completely misrepresenting? -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, significant coverage in secondary source material. — Cirt (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Request I see some arguments stating that there are sources that unify this disparate events, but with the large fluctuations in the article itself, it's hard to search the history. Could someone list those sources here, so that I and others might use them in forming positions and arguments? --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. The two references I referred to specifically (without suggesting that there weren't more), were ^[1] and ^[2].

Notes: (1) I AGF'd the quotes as accurate (2) I stopped searching after finding two because I felt these sufficient to my rationale, so my listing two is not in any way meant to assert that these are the best available sources, or all of them (3) my rationale and interpretation of policy does not require in-depth coverage of the term from these sources, which some editor's rationales do seem to require. --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those details, they do indeed help. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A point in the article's favour, certainly, but I'm a bit worried that the term is kind of obvious, and I'm not sure it's widespread enough in actuality to count as a genuine movement, beyond the wider movement we have an article on. If merged, though, I certainly think those references justify a fairly large section, at the least. 86.** IP (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no organized movement, as far a I can tell. The usage of "Straight Pride" seems to be a grass roots reaction to gay pride and similar emphases. That is why some of us call it a phenomena because it is obviously a slogan to be dealt with but it arises out of a natural sense of fairness and balance. Proponents of gay pride point to the daily privilege enjoyed by those of heterosexual advocacy and oppose Straight Pride as an effort of those who already are favored to keep their favored status. drs (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article attempts to WP:SYNTH a wide range of items and treat them as if they are part of the same thing because they have similar names, as if we would unite the Boston Tea Party, the Tea Party Express, and Mrs. Tyndale-Clyde's Tea into a single item. While the USA Today source that does unify some events, they are unifying specifically and solely US campus "straight pride rallies"; the (horribly edited) Massachusetts document mentions an example of a "Straight-Pride Rally" in their examples, but again just a campus rally event. There is an argument to be made that college "straight pride rallies" could be covered in a single article, but it seems to me that, particularly with the USA Today article, that usage of "Straight pride" could be covered within "Gay Pride" (and I have no objection to an appropriate redirect there. But this article is also currently covering (and seems dependent on covering):

1. "Straight Pride" as a t-shirt slogan
2. "Heterosexual pride" as being the same slogan, which is unsourced, but which people seem to find useful for lumping in events specifically using that term.

Even the folks supporting that this is some sort of unified phenomenon (or "a phenomena", as has been phrased) have been listing the different motivations for these different events and saying that the phenomenon is motivated by all these things, and that unites them. It's kind of like me covering Jacksons, and noting that they are unified by hitting a lot of home runs, having a lot of hits from their Bad album, and serving as the seventh president of the United States. Oh, and because "Jack" is commonly a nickname for "Johnathan", as is "John", we also get to include them co-starring in Miami Vice. I haven't seen any sources covering this supposed blanket phenomenon, which makes all this lumping together WP:OR. I appreciate the hard work some folks have put into trying to unite this, but the efforts come across as too, well, original to meet Wikipedia guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As an editor who substantially rewrote the article during AfD, I found that the topic meets GNG. I had no concern when working on the article whether it actually would meet GNG, because my intent was to improve the article and copy the content for my own use (on my blog or otherwise, as the content will easily get hits where-ever posted) if the article got deleted. My !vote is based on the sources, not on my imperfect attempt to improve the article. Too many !votes completely misconstrue "Straight pride" as a happenstance slogan instead of a documented recurrent phenomena response to gay pride events over a 20 year period. No less so, by way of analogy, than white pride is to civil rights advances. A few editors have wrongfully elevated the single t-shirts for sale at a Tea Party event in the article, misleading other editors in this discussion to thinking its only a coatrack of sorts.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article has a few "synth" issues, but they do not involve any exceptional logical leaps outside the range of the average reader - it should be clear that "straight pride" and "heterosexual pride" and even "Heterosexual Day" are relatively synonymous. I understand that after a long period of some editors targeting gay topics for unreasonable deletion proposals, and even making trouble for the authors of some of these pages, there must be a strong urge to "get back" at them by similar actions; nonetheless, this is still the grand encyclopedia of mankind and we must focus on ending politically motivated deletion altogether, not settle for merely taking a share of it. Wnt (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If you read the article you will see random events from the web, inlcuding "Straight Pride", "Straight Pride Movement" and "Straight Pride protests" as a backlash to "gay pride" "gay people" and "gay rights movement" and WP:Synth linking them all together. All that article is is a random list of events where straight pride was used or where they claimed to be a straight pride protest. It is a backlash, nothing more and not an article. At the most basic, it is a list of things that happened or were reported to have happened. That does not pass WP:Notability, WP:Synth, WP:OR and the arguments for it to not be merged/deleted still do not change this. Thanks Jenova20 13:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  In Wikipedia, synthesis is making statements that were not in / from the sources. The mere coverage of different areas, history, aspects, events regarding regarding a topic in an article is the norm, not synthesis. The criteria that they all have to be unified into a single organized movement in order to be a proper article topic or in order for them to be in the same article simply does not exist. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I favor North8000's opinion, on which I've acted at times, for example when I added information about inverse sodium hydride to the sodium hydride article. Others do the same thing when they merge a BLP1E into an article about an event, or when they include pictures of chocolate eggs in Easter egg. I can sort of see the other point of view here, but I'm not ready to agree with it; I think that if a phrase is so obviously reinventable that many people reinvent it, that makes it just as notable if not more so than if one person invents it and it spreads.

Now if you could say that no single one of the Straight Pride events had enough notability to pass GNG, I might be open to persuasion, but I don't think that's really the case. As long as one meets it, the others are acceptable parallels to document.

Actually, a pretty close parallel I started was Jin Qian Cao, which is a traditional Chinese herbal medicine which can be any of half a dozen herbs named (mostly) after different regions of China. I started that as just a basic stub so I could keep track of which was what if I went back that way again, and I could expand it, but I don't think I should have to. I don't think I should have to start new articles (or sections of existing articles) on Sichuan Da Jin Qian Cao, Guang Jin Qian Cao, etc., and then revise my work to a mere disambiguation page, especially when there is some interchangeability in how these herbs are sold and used. The same should be true of "Straight Pride" movements. Wnt (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• May we assume that your "keep" vote is also "politically motivated", or is that merely an unsourced attempt to be derisive of the editors who have been arguing for deletion? If all these things were synonymous and both related and significant as a single topic, we would expect to find sources on that. This article is about a "slogan", and it has said so from the very beginning (of this version; I cannot speak to the article of the same name that got deleted from an earlier AfD). If it is not about a slogan, then what is it about? If it is about a "phenomena", then where is the source on this as a phenomena?

  As for North8000's claim that synthesis is merely about making statements, I recommend that that editor reread WP:SYNTH; it is not just about statements made, it is also about implications created, as is done by the lumping of things together without source for the linkage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's meaningless and insulting to just point to an entire policy and say that I should "re-read" it and imply that it establishes your point; I'm very familiar with it., and it does not refute what I just said. It is very clear (with examples) about what it means by not synthesizing by juxtaposition etc. And there's nothing in there to support your theory that mere presence in the same article constitutes wp:synthesis. North8000 (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

they didnt just point to an entire policy and say "re-read it", they explained how you are misinterpreting it. Its insulting to misrepresent other people's actions. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I confused you. You said "synthesis is making statements", I pointed out that it wasn't just about making statements but also about creating implications, which are things that are suggested without being stated, and directed you to the guidelines, which clearly state that it includes implications. As for whether the article engages is and relies on such synthesis of implication, I feel that it does. We create a topic that uses some sources which say what "straight pride" means in those context, define that as the topic of the article, and then find examples of using the term whether or not it's what it means in that context. Is "straight pride" used most frequently as an anti-gay slogan? That seems probable. But if we throw in examples where we do not know that to be the case, then we are creating the implication that they are anti-gay uses, which is WP:SYNTH, and if we are using those examples to paint the picture of the preponderance of the "phenomena" of the use of the term "straight pride" as an anti-gay slogan, then we are relying on inappropriate synthesis to justify the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I'm not sure I'm following your argument any more. Are you saying that this is SYNTH because we're not sure that the reported events are examples of anti-gay use? Because I'm pretty sure that most if not all of the available references are describing the events as opposing gay pride. It's not us making that inference, it's right there in the sources. Diego (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're not sure that all the uses are anti-gay. Some are, some are apparently simply against specific group celebrations (Yellowknife), some are reports of people being offended by their belief that the slogan is anti-gay without any note on what the source believes (the Michigan Tea Party shirts), and some things have been added in (and used in claims that their existence supports the article) without any sourcing at all. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we require that all uses are anti-gay? If some are, as you just admitted, that's enough to link them to the "opposition to gay pride" concept that is described by reliable sources and one of the main aspects of this article. If you want to focus on one single topic instead of all the related meanings of the term that would be fine, but even then that's not a reason to delete the whole article, only to remove those events where the anti-gay theme is not clear. Diego (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is on straight-pride-the-anti-gay-slogan (as the article's introduction currently states), then anything we put in here about "straight pride" we're labeling as an antigay use by implication; if it's not actually anti-gay, then we've got synthesis leading to falsehood. If folks want an article on something else, that's not what this article purports to be, and editors' descriptors of what they're aiming for as a "phenomena" have been lacking in reliable sources covering that "straight pride". If you want an article on "opposition to gay pride", there's certainly a case to be made for that, although it still might be served better by being in context as section of the gay pride article. -Nat Gertler (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have problems with the accuracy of the article's introduction, those are dealt with by discussing it at the talk page and fixing the sentence, not by proposing the article for deletion. Diego (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My "keep" vote is political in the sense that I am an inclusionist - I strongly oppose removing articles because someone doesn't like them, they're "unsuitable", they're "cruft", etcetera. Wikipedia should have the simplicity of the uncarved block, so I oppose people carving into it, regardless of their intentions. Wnt (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually, I'm a deletionist and I have been arguing for keep on this one. It seems to me to be a genuine, if minor, social movement. Efforts to delete it or merge it with "gay pride" seem to be as much a form of affronted denial as an honest effort to organize the project and assign due weight. We have incidents across North and South America, commercial products, news reports, protests and counter-protests. I mean, we've got an article on the kid who voices Boots the Monkey from Dora the Explorer. Straight Pride is questionable, certainly, but notable. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It's hard to maintain that straight pride doesn't exist as a concept when it even gets parodies. (Chill out and don't take the linked article too seriously, I just wanted to relax the heated debate with a good laugh). Diego (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely such parodies are just random occurrences!!! :-) This is one of the oddest AfDs I've seen in some time. The continual idea that only "movements" merit articles is perplexing. Is Keyboard Cat a movement? Cuz its time for the cat to play off this AfD either way.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboard cat is a well referenced and notable topic, granted it has plateaued. Straight Pride is a badly named article, which does not specify if it is a list, a bunch of incidents, what any of it means, and with not one ounce of notability outside LGBT rights opposition and homophobia. You're trying to create a movement from nothing but separate incidents of people protesting - again LGBT rights opposition and homophobia. The equivalent would be getting people to walk down the street with banners saying purple pride and getting in the papers of a small town, then doing it a few more times and linking them as a movement in breach of WP:Synth, WP:OR. Thanks Jenova20 22:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Nobody is trying to create a movement; and the article notability is based on LGBT rights opposition and homophobia. If the people with purple pride banners got noticed by a Massachusetts Governor's Commission, the Chicago Tribune, The New York Times, The Advocate and numerous other professional newspapers and writers, sure, it could have its own article; that's the standard for inclusion at Wikipedia. Diego (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not creating anything, the "creating a movement" comments are bullshit. You start your purple pride article, or go praise Keyboard Cat Jesus, I'll stick with what's actually notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly not the criteria for inclusion. Being in small scale media adds a small value of notability but it's the reason why it's notable that makes it encyclopedic overall and there isn't one for these scattered incidents in the Straight Pride article other than multiple allegations of LGBT rights opposition and homophobia. Thanks Jenova20 23:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, if there are multiple allegations of LGBT rights opposition and homophobia, why shouldn't that be the reason why it's notable? It seems to be the reason why it's covered in-depth by reliable media, which is the criteria for inclusion. Diego (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect to LGBT rights opposition - "Straight Pride" just a knee jerk counter-slogan, not a distinctive movement in and of itself. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where folks are coming up with criteria like everything in it needs to be a unified/ linked/organized/unified etc. movement in order to be an article subject. There is no such criteria! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is in any practical application of WP:IINFO and WP:SYN. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not. Do too. Do not. This is where the level of debate has come. Please, find new arguments - or at least bother to explain the argument you're making, - or let it go and wait for the closing admin to digest the conversation. Diego (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then contribute to it instead of labelling everyone who posts anything about policies this "article" breaches as an infidel. We're only here in the first place because of knuckle dragging and refusal to accept reality. And your wanting every policy explained to you rather than reading them yourself is just a way to continue this. Jenova20 08:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a matter of explaining policies, it is a vague claim that one exists. My comment (briefly) was a statement that no "unified/organized movement" standard exists regarding article existence/deletion. And an opposing view that claims that it does exist. Such would be expected to point to the specific part supporting that claim. Red pen's response vaguely implied that it did but then referenced an overall redirect to a policy which does not even relate to article existence/deletion and a section of another policy that says nothing related to such an requirement. North8000 (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make personal attacksallegations; I'm only commenting about the quality of the arguments posted, not the people who made them. Explaining how a policy relates to an article is the bare minimum expected from commenters at AfD, we even have an essay explaining why "read the policy" is not a convincing argument. Red Pen of Doom made an assertion that practical applications of SYN and IINFO require us to find an unified movement to document the concept of straight pride. I'm asking this editor to explain why we should require such thing, when nothing like that is written in the policies linked to; otherwise that claim won't hold any weight in the process to build consensus. Particularly I find that the arguments given so far in that respect at this discussion are not realistic and contrary to how many other articles are created and sourced, but I was expecting that the argument potentially had some more insight that could be used to improve the article and/or Wikipedia at large. Diego (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why the link to WP:IINFO would have been confusing. It does not spell out "Wikipedia is not just a collection of indiscriminate information." in the way that I remembered it. Trying to find out where that guidance is. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That statement comes from WP:NOTE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

but the NOTE just leads back to IINFO -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.