Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore gay literature

Singapore gay literature

Relisting for deletion after no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore public gay parties.

Delete as unverifiable biased original research and indiscriminate list. From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics...". I'm not questioning the verifiability of the specific literature; if any of those redlinks are notable they should have their own articles. However, loosely associating them in this fashion is original research and the writeups on them are little more than book reviews. -- Krash (Talk) 15:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Speedy in fact, no reason for relisting immediately. There was no consensus for deletion. --Vsion 15:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, it only can be renominated after one month. --Terence Ong 15:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm trying to find a consensus here. Listing all of them together was problematic because there are obviously different opinions on each subject. I've seen many articles immediately relisted to generate a consensus. -- Krash (Talk) 15:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a speedy keep. Please see that page for criteria for speedy keeping. There is no such one-month wait rule unless it's a very recent change. Stifle 23:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. May I ask for clarification. The nominator wrote that the verifiability of the literature is not questioned, but he later said that "loosely associating them in this fashion is original research". May I point out that: First: most of these literature are of certain genre, so they are closely associated (except probably the section on "short stories" ). Second: compilation of verifiable content is NOT original research. Please refer to Wikipedia:No original research and the discussion in the talk page. In fact, such compilations, in general, are very useful, and especially valuable in this topic. It badly needs a cleanup instead. --Vsion 16:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to see some sources that classify these writings as "Singapore gay literature". Something that shows that someone else has written on the subject of "Singapre gay literature". Otherwise this just looks like original research. I've followed all of the links, but they're about a specific writing, not the subject as a whole. This leads me to believe that the writings should have their own articles and that this article lumps them all together for some unexplained reason. The "internet" section at the end serves as a repository of links of examples but nothing that I would consider a ~~primary~~ reliable source. -- Krash (Talk) 16:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Krash argued, the article is just a list of Singapore gay literature rather than an actual article on Singapore gay literature. More notable works can go into Literature of Singapore and if the list deemed useful, put it in List of Singapore gay literature -- Dodo bird 17:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for now; then Keep if relisted after a proper month wait. Notable, verifiable, and properly cited. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a speedy keep. Please see that page for criteria for speedy keeping. There is no such one-month wait rule unless it's a very recent change. Stifle 23:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Scranchuse 21:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The error was listing all these together in the first place. This appears to lack secondary sources. Stifle 23:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 00:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic and there is enough here to warrant keeping. Referencing should be improved. Capitalistroadster 00:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Leidiot 01:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs expansion and the red links could use blueing, but it's a viable article regardless. Rob T Firefly 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A lot of red links, but seems well organized, notable, verifyable, referenced appropriately. AfD is not a substitute for a cleanup tag. Georgewilliamherbert 08:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems worthy of an article. Fagstein 08:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is mostly verifiable, and it is not indiscriminate. It is about Singapore LGBT fiction and poetry, as well as non-fiction about the LGBT community in Singapore or that is useful to LGBT's in Singapore. It is a useful compilation of interesting information that could not readily be found otherwise. No need for a second AFD in two weeks. Wuzzy 15:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article certainly needs some improvement, but it's a perfectly valid topic and it's exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia should be doing more of: coverage of non-Western cultures. Keep. And I also need to add my voice to the list of objections to such a rapid relisting. I will say speedy keep too — and frankly, I couldn't give a rat's ass what is or isn't a speedy keep criterion: relisting within hours of a no-consensus closure clearly violates WP:POINT. Bearcat 06:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea how WP:POINT factors into this. Contentiously grasping for straws to build a strawman out of me only detracts from what could be spent demonstrating that the article in question might be worthy of being kept. I'm still waiting for some secondary sources that would totally blow holes through my nomination. -- Krash (Talk) 15:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original Afd listed 5 articles. Since there was no consensus, it makes sense to relist them seperately. -- Dodo bird 08:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. Kappa 10:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]