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.
I see some changes have been made to it since I posted on its talk page. But it still seems like a niche term that only a small group of activists use and isn't notable. The mere existence of the article is also POV, because it was created by said activists to spread influence for the word they created. It also had Unreliable Sources and Third Party issues, as most of the sources were said activists' own blogs and essays.
I believe the only way to make it a neutral article (and provide any noteworthiness) is to re-frame it as a discussion of the activists' opinions on the subject. Alas, the article is still using "Wikipedia's voice" to speak of this niche term as if it were a fact. Amaroq64 (
talk)
23:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. The nominator confuses their disapproval of the concept with non-notability. That queerbaiting is something which reliable sources describe in depth is amply demonstrated by the article's references. That's what's needed for an article. Sandstein 18:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep The article is well-sourced and describes a relevant topic. If anything, a skeptic's perspective could be added through additional neutral point of view edits and sourcing.
Ericwg (
talk)
01:35, 1 June 2019 (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.