Wikipedia:Deletion review/Ghey

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep deleted. I do not, however, find a clear consensus that protection is required. I am going to remove the page protection.

There does seem to be a general feeling that a redirect is appropriate with an open question of whether the page should redirect to en:gay or wikt:ghey. That, however, is a decision which can be worked out on the respective Talk page(s). As an ordinary editor-action, I am going to point the page to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It now turns out to get increasing number of search engine results 400,000;407,000;416,000 (YAHOO!). It is/has become a proofable internet phenomena at least. I would like to get it undeleted, because the deleted page appers at top of search results, and it looks like wikipedia performs censorship. My argumentation is that wikipedia maintains entries with ~500 hits, like Cocacolonization, or 94 hits, like Nipponisation. The number of search engine hits, which link to verifyable different sites, show an remarkable interest of the public in the subject of Ghey.

see Skeletor (called ghey on the net).

416,000 hits for "Ghey", and its means something different. See Amy, Ami - it is also a name. I believe i am allowed to argue here, opposed to Afd. (this comment was originally posted below in response to user:SPUI. it was later moved by user:Akidd dublin)

Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 742,000 for ghey. Wikipedia probably needs to redirect/protect it.Several countries (its political people) won't go into that page, or allow the word on the internet. Personally, i have experienced internet directories completely free of that term. However it might be OR, because it is only since 1990. Butterface style page is acceptable for now. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 08:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It seems like the user is trying to make a WP:POINT, firstly by nominating Cocacolonization for AfD and secondly for using it and this section as evidence for the point. Ansell 10:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to gay, as a misspelling. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 10:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (moved comment)
    • Are there "notable" uses other than Gay#Pejorative usage? --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 13:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • FYI: Don't be ghey. Go BUY it for like $15 US dollars. Order it from chips and bits, I'm sure it's cheap. - sense of meaning of lame. nothing sexual/orientation related. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 13:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Beginning in the 1990s and especially in the 2000s the usage became common among young people, who may or may not link the term to homosexuality." --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Where's the AfD? Can this article ever be anything more than a dicdef? Any way to see what the article looked like before it was deleted? Powers 13:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a VfD linked to on the protected page, but from July 2004 (which the initiator of this edited a week ago). The deletion log did record a deletion of this on March 27, and the content of the article was listed in the reason. It was, indeed, a simple dicdef. WarpstarRider 21:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was nothing saying not to edit the discussion (as at other places). Since then two years have passed. People see wikipedia entry 1st place, really looks like censorship (for OR reason, new term, since 1990). Personally i am going to use Ghey, if appreciate. There are numerous dicdef's continiuing their existence. I can commment a comment. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 08:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave protected Lots of hits, but no definitive meaning of the slang word. Possible redirect to Gay (disambiguation) due to different meanings, as redirecting to one in particular would be validation on one variant without a reference. MartinRe 13:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm inclined to leave this entry deleted for the point that Powers makes: even if it were notable on its own, it should be transwikied to wikidictionary. Bucketsofg✐ 17:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted Either keep deleted or redirect to the disambig page. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Create a page with a link to Wiktionary:ghey and Gay (disambiguation) or redirect to Gay (disambiguation) and link to the Wiktionary page from there. I'm not certain which would be best, - can a disambig page have just one internal and one interwiki link? Thryduulf 22:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think what was done to Butterface should be done here. Protect the page and provide a link to Wiktionary. Brian G. Crawford 23:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted; alternatively, do a Butterface-style page. It's not notable in an encyclopedia right, but may be acceptable to link to Wikt. Ral315 (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted or redirect and protect. Just zis Guy you know? 15:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Every version I spot-checked was a mere dictionary definition. No one has yet presented any evidence that this can ever be more than a mere dicdef. I do note that this definition is already at Wiktionary. It might make sense to replace the {{deletedpage}} template with the {{wi}} template. Rossami (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and list on AFD. There has never been an AFD on this, only speedies, and dicdefs are not speediable. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there was. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ghey was decided back in 2004. Rossami (talk)
    • That seems to be no consensus. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 10:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • While today that debate would probably be closed as no consensus, there were far fewer voters in debates back then and closes like that were the norm from what I've seen (I arrived in December 2004). Thryduulf 01:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gay and protect. The Gay article discusses this spelling variant at length. Failing that, add and redirect to List of internet slang instead. There is no reason to omit this altogether. — May. 17, '06 [01:41] <freak|talk>
• Redirect per above. But somebody should probably look into the way it's discussed in gay, because I'm not entirely sure that description is accurate. --Cheapestcostavoider 06:27, 18 May 2006 (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.