- 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 merge to LGBT#Criticism of the term. Seems like there are two points of contention here. The first is whether the topic is notable by virtue of having attracted substantial/sustained attention. The discussion is somewhat split, with the most detailed points by XOR'easter and Levivich giving the impression that most of the sources are inadequate (Spinningspark has contested this claim on one source) or don't offer enough material to write about this campaign/slogan. A number of other participants echo these lines of thought but also note that the minimal coverage under WP:PAGEDECIDE (or under WP:PRESERVE as cited by Spinningspark) should be put into another article - this is the second point. The LGBT appears to be the preferred topic, thus the preferred merge target. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Drop the T
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Drop the T ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable fringe petition slogan with a transphobic POV bent. Per parent article Feminist views on transgender topics, its supporters are a fringe minority backed by Christian conservatives, whom want to divide and conquer the LGBT community. Fails WP:GNG with relatively weak sourcing (2 of which are medium blog posts), and WP:SUSTAINED (most sources point to 2015). Should be properly deleted with content moved to parent article, if there's anything salvageable. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹 🌉 18:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment This seems more like a "merge and redirect" than a "delete"; the sourcing, though of variable quality, includes items in the acceptably-reliable range, and the phrase remains in use [1] [2]. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Notable slogan for a movement within and outside the LGBT community that's been around for years now. This subject has recived a ton of coverage. Simple googeling gives several of reliable sources for it. Yeah its a sub right now but an article being in bad shape is no reason for deletion. At the very most is could be merged to another article, but that doesn't fix the fact that not everyone who supports this is a feminist, lesbian or even LGBT, so
Feminist views on transgender topics wouldn't really make much sense. Right now there is not other page that focuses on the subject of transphobia withing the LGBT community.
★Trekker (
talk)
19:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
If there's no particularly good merge target, I'd support a keep. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)- Well, all instances of usage have been by either these fringe feminists, or people describing them. The page's content is prefectly fit to be included as a paragraph on
Transphobia. It's odd to give a fringe movement it's own page at this stage and this violate the spirit of
WP:FRINGE by implicitly endorsing it. I see no reason of not deleting this one.
Tsumikiria⧸
🌹
🌉
21:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- Whether giving a fringe group its own page acts as an implicit endorsement can be an awfully gray-area thing that, I think, has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. That said, a paragraph in Transphobia#In gay, lesbian, and bisexual communities seems to be the perfect spot for this. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- That's a silly implication. Writing an article about a subject is not an endorcement of that subject. I do not support Transphobia in any form. I made the article because I think it is important to cover the existing transphobia that exists within LGBT communities. ★Trekker ( talk) 22:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to
Transphobia#In gay, lesbian, and bisexual communities. The article isn't actually correct in saying that the phrase was coined in 2015; a
2013 column in
The New Yorker uses it, for example (not as a call to action, but as a description of how many people behave).
XOR'easter (
talk)
22:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- To say it another way, if this were currently a paragraph in Transphobia, there would be no rationale to split it into its own page. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete a fringe campaign fails GNG, this never became an LGBTQ phrase. -- Fæ ( talk) 22:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, this may be fringe, but that is not a valid rationale for deletion. It is incredibly widely discussed
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6].
Spinning
Spark
22:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- The
metro.co.uk link appears to be an independent use of the phrase, in an opinion piece that predates the petition which is the subject of this article. I question the reliability of
The Federalist on this topic. Overall, there was one petition that flashed in the pan, generated some opinions and mostly sank away; and there are a smattering of prior uses, quite possibly coined independently from one another (we're not exactly talking Algonquin Round Table level of wit here). So, while we have enough to write about, I can't make a case for doing so in a dedicated article, particularly when
Transphobia#In gay, lesbian, and bisexual communities is right there.
XOR'easter (
talk)
23:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- (after ec) You didn't offer a rationale why they are not reliable, but there are plenty of others
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11].
Spinning
Spark
23:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- My rationale for why The Federalist is not reliable on this topic (or, probably, most any other) is aptly summarized by the Wikipedia article on The Federalist. The New Yorker link is one that I posted myself above. The Queerty link is just a commentary on the USA Today op-ed, which is just an op-ed and doesn't have anything to do with the petition that is the subject of this article. The Gay Star News link is a cursory report on a Twitter dust-up. Plenty of people have used the phrase, but this article is about a 2015 petition, and there's just not enough to say about that petition to merit a whole article. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- And, now that I think on it, trying to expand the article beyond perma-stub status by filling it with pre- and post-2015 instances of the phrase would be the sort of
synthesis that lexicographers can do, but we can't.
XOR'easter (
talk)
23:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- You cannot argue at one and the same time for WP:SUSTAINED (as the nom did) and then reject all sources that are not concerned with the original campaign. Your argument re the Federalist does not make sense. The Wikipedia article does not touch on its reliablility, only the right-wingedness of its politics. A source can be POV and reliable at the same time, and this is written into our policy
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources. Just because you don't like the politics of a source, does not mean you are entitled to label it unreliable.
Spinning
Spark
13:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sources that were published well after the original campaign and still discuss the original campaign in depth are evidence of sustained interest. Sources that were published well after the original campaign and make passing mention of it or use the phrase independently are not. And trying to make an article about the slogan rather than the event is
WP:SYNTH. As for the reliability issue, I'm not labeling The Federalist unreliable because of its politics, but because its history begins with a founder fired for plagiarism and only continues from there. I'd object to a left-wing source or an avowedly centrist source for the same reasons.
XOR'easter (
talk)
14:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article does not say the founder was fired for plagiarism, or suggest in any way that The Federalist is unreliable (remember, you claimed that was where the information was). In any case, projecting one person's misdemeanour to reflect on a publication that was not involved in the plagiarism is your own synthesis, the very thing you are accusing me of (and I note that all the publications he is accused of plagiarising are themselves reliable sources).
Spinning
Spark
15:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
-
WP:SYNTH is about article content, not how we as editors come to judgments about whether a source is worth our time. The article on The Federalist prominently links to
Ben Domenech, and it describes both their lack of transparency about their funding and their promotion of a conspiracy theory. I found that an adequate summary. I apologize for being more curt or elliptical about that than I most likely should have been; for more, see
[12]
[13]
[14]. (As an academic, I inevitably take issue with the description of plagiarism as a "misdemeanour"; it is serious intellectual misconduct per any university's honor code, for example, and the then-editor of the Washington Post website considered it a firing offense. The fact that the victims of his intellectual-property theft were reliable sources does not somehow make his conduct ethical.) But even supposing them admissible sources, they don't add up to much. Of the two Federalist links, the
first is an interview with the initiator of the Change.org petition, and so a
WP:PRIMARY source that would be of borderline utility in evaluating notability no matter where it was published. The
second is an opinion piece (by an author who appears to be a professional provocateur, but we'll set that aside) which only uses the phrase "drop the T" in the headline and does not mention the 2015 petition. If the lexicographers at Merriam-Webster or the OED wrote a blog post about "The history of dropping the T from LGBT", then we would
at least have grounds to consider all these disparate examples together. As it is, we have
one event, and a scattering of activist screeds that provide incidental phrase-drops. Nothing here substantiates a stand-alone article.
XOR'easter (
talk)
16:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- We are clearly not going to agree, so I'm stopping responding here. Spinning Spark 19:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
-
WP:SYNTH is about article content, not how we as editors come to judgments about whether a source is worth our time. The article on The Federalist prominently links to
Ben Domenech, and it describes both their lack of transparency about their funding and their promotion of a conspiracy theory. I found that an adequate summary. I apologize for being more curt or elliptical about that than I most likely should have been; for more, see
[12]
[13]
[14]. (As an academic, I inevitably take issue with the description of plagiarism as a "misdemeanour"; it is serious intellectual misconduct per any university's honor code, for example, and the then-editor of the Washington Post website considered it a firing offense. The fact that the victims of his intellectual-property theft were reliable sources does not somehow make his conduct ethical.) But even supposing them admissible sources, they don't add up to much. Of the two Federalist links, the
first is an interview with the initiator of the Change.org petition, and so a
WP:PRIMARY source that would be of borderline utility in evaluating notability no matter where it was published. The
second is an opinion piece (by an author who appears to be a professional provocateur, but we'll set that aside) which only uses the phrase "drop the T" in the headline and does not mention the 2015 petition. If the lexicographers at Merriam-Webster or the OED wrote a blog post about "The history of dropping the T from LGBT", then we would
at least have grounds to consider all these disparate examples together. As it is, we have
one event, and a scattering of activist screeds that provide incidental phrase-drops. Nothing here substantiates a stand-alone article.
XOR'easter (
talk)
16:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article does not say the founder was fired for plagiarism, or suggest in any way that The Federalist is unreliable (remember, you claimed that was where the information was). In any case, projecting one person's misdemeanour to reflect on a publication that was not involved in the plagiarism is your own synthesis, the very thing you are accusing me of (and I note that all the publications he is accused of plagiarising are themselves reliable sources).
Spinning
Spark
15:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sources that were published well after the original campaign and still discuss the original campaign in depth are evidence of sustained interest. Sources that were published well after the original campaign and make passing mention of it or use the phrase independently are not. And trying to make an article about the slogan rather than the event is
WP:SYNTH. As for the reliability issue, I'm not labeling The Federalist unreliable because of its politics, but because its history begins with a founder fired for plagiarism and only continues from there. I'd object to a left-wing source or an avowedly centrist source for the same reasons.
XOR'easter (
talk)
14:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- You cannot argue at one and the same time for WP:SUSTAINED (as the nom did) and then reject all sources that are not concerned with the original campaign. Your argument re the Federalist does not make sense. The Wikipedia article does not touch on its reliablility, only the right-wingedness of its politics. A source can be POV and reliable at the same time, and this is written into our policy
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources. Just because you don't like the politics of a source, does not mean you are entitled to label it unreliable.
Spinning
Spark
13:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- (after ec) You didn't offer a rationale why they are not reliable, but there are plenty of others
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11].
Spinning
Spark
23:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- The
metro.co.uk link appears to be an independent use of the phrase, in an opinion piece that predates the petition which is the subject of this article. I question the reliability of
The Federalist on this topic. Overall, there was one petition that flashed in the pan, generated some opinions and mostly sank away; and there are a smattering of prior uses, quite possibly coined independently from one another (we're not exactly talking Algonquin Round Table level of wit here). So, while we have enough to write about, I can't make a case for doing so in a dedicated article, particularly when
Transphobia#In gay, lesbian, and bisexual communities is right there.
XOR'easter (
talk)
23:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: Subject has adequate notability and uniqueness. A145 ( talk) 18:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Note this AfD was opened by the same user at roughly the same time as another AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get the L Out A145 ( talk) 18:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is perfectly fine, what is it that you're insinuating? Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹 🌉 01:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete or merge with
LGBT#Criticism_of_the_term.
WP:WHYN:
If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.
WanderingWanda ( talk) 16:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC) - Merge with LGBT#Criticism_of_the_term, per Wanda's reasoning. LokiTheLiar ( talk) 19:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Merge with LGBT#Criticism of the term per Wanda. – Þjarkur (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete or merge to LGBT#Criticism_of_the_term. I started looking through the sources in this article yesterday, when I saw it linked in "Get the L Out", and they just don't allow for much to be written about this (as evidenced by the article being only a few sentences). They seem better suited to supporting a mention of the concept in another article. (And iff the content is merged to that page or some other page, then IMO obviously the current page should be a redirect to there rather than entirely deleted.) -sche ( talk) 01:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment'. I !voted "keep" above, but would also support a merge that WP:PRESERVEd the existing material. Spinning Spark 08:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete no evidence of notability beyond the initial event, and due to source issues XOR'easter pointed out. Rab V ( talk) 08:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to
LGBT#Criticism of the term and I have a lot to say.
- I came here because I read about it on GenderDesk. My colleagues can decide if that makes my opinion less valid.
- This article meets GNG. It's been the subject of in-depth coverage, both left-leaning ( MTV News 2015, Teen Vogue 2015) and right-leaning ( The Federalist 2015, The Federalist 2016, Spectator 2017). A publication having political bias doesn't mean it's not an independent reliable source (all publications have political bias). Two years of coverage meets WP:SUSTAINED for me. Pop culture magazines and opinion pieces still count for notability IMO.
- Most of the coverage is criticism of the group/petition/idea. Some of the RSes report that it was all a conservative hit job. All of this is reason to edit an article, not delete it. We cover notable reprehensible groups like the Ku Klux Klan, we don't delete articles for this reason.
- So why redirect? Because WP:PAGEDECIDE. Notability isn't the only question–there's also the question of how to organize the content to best serve our reader. "Drop the T" is a useful search term, so we should have a redirect for it. Most of the coverage, though it establishes notability, is people giving opinions about it (mostly negative). Although there is plenty written, and the petition/phrase has received enough attention to make it notable, there isn't a lot of factual reporting in all those sources, meaning our article will likely remain a very small size. Coverage seems to have dried up after 2017, with most links I find after that using "drop the T" descriptively as a phrase, rather than in reference to a movement or petition. Because this is both a petition, and a phrase that represents an idea or a social/political goal–used both before and after the 2015 petition–we will best serve our readers by putting this content in context, which means taking the paragraph that is this article and putting it at LGBT#Criticism of the term. So redirect there, not because it's not notable, but because it's the best place for the content. – Leviv ich 16:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- @ Levivich: You have said "redirect", but your reasoning is for "merge and redirect". Not entirely the same thing. Spinning Spark 17:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - this seems to essentially be a news story. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- merge/refactor Seems to have received a fair amount of publicity, but may not last. There seems to be a movement here (see Get the L Out, but I suspect its not important enough for its own article. So merge the two (and any other related articles) into one article. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:58, 23 May 2019 (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.