Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chickenhawk (sexuality)

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 keep. Sr13 04:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Chickenhawk (sexuality)

Chickenhawk (sexuality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article doesnt really have sources, and doesnt seem like it could get bigger than it is now, doesnt seem like a real subject for wikipedia. Bubulina8888 06:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete Keep (see "Reason for changed vote" below for reasons) show me sources that give substantial treatment (as per WP:N)to the subject(s) of the article and I'll change my vote. I'd heard the term before and thought I'd find something online, but I don't see anything but a couple of definitions, so now I doubt the term or subject is notable enough for Wikipedia. Perhaps it's better treated as part of another article. Noroton 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Reason for changed vote There seems to be substantial treatment of the topic in at least one book and one academic article (Reeling in the Years: Gay Men's Perspectives on Age and Ageism by Tim Bergling, and Adam, Barry D. "Age Preferences among Gay and Bisexual Men" GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, now in the article's footnotes. It now seems reasonable to assume that Wikipedia-acceptable sources are available. If the article actually had the sources in it, and if they provided substantial information, that would be better and I wouldn't call my vote "weak." Wikipedia policy talks about "verifiable" not "verified". Noroton 15:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep this (slightly obsolete) aspect of gay culture. Scores of Google Books results (using chickenhawk+gay, other terms may garner further sources). Google Scholar has dozens more. This has been widely studied and written about, but the newer political term (as well as decreasing usage) makes it harder to find the sources. --Dhartung | Talk 07:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors may wish to note the WP:POINT-y Bubulina8888 (talk · contribs) contribution history. --Dhartung | Talk 07:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I started looking at those results at Google Scholar and Google Books and found maybe one book on older gay men that on its face would likely give substantial treatment of the subject (Reeling in the Years: Gay Men's Perspectives on Age and Ageism by Tim Bergling). I haven't seen evidence that there's more out there, and there needs to be. Noroton 16:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so you're saying there's one major primary source in addition to all the supporting sources. Thanks! --Dhartung | Talk 19:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I said "maybe" and invited further efforts that could change my mind. You bring up a point I mentioned in a deletion discussion about a school in a case where there was an online source anybody could read to see that the subject was covered in depth, along with many minor sources that I thought added up to notability. We don't have that here. We don't even know if the minor sources just use the term. I welcome good-faith efforts to reach a consensus here. Noroton 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I see no strong reason to delete it. If it's unsourced, it needs sources, if it doesn't seem it can get bigger -- that could very well be because you aren't interested in the topic. Furthermore, I also noticed that you previously tried to delete Gay_(disambiguation) and Lesbian_(disambiguation), leading me to wonder if the reason you didn't cite a policy reason for deletion is because the real reason of this nomination is to raise a soapbox issue. Spazure 08:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've no views on this one, but as Dhartung says, Bubulina has been told off about this trying to delete gay stuff before.Merkinsmum 10:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a dictionary definition as it stands. While I find the nominator's actions regarding gay-related articles questionable, even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn and in this instance the article as it stands is not Wikipedia material. If it's substantially improved before the close of the AFD with sourcing and context then I can be persuaded to change my opinion. Otto4711 12:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There is a link to imdb. I put it there. Tony 13:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Tony

• IMDB is not a reliable source. Otto4711 13:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Who says so? That's ridiculous. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples says so, in regards to much of the material posted to IMDB. Much of its content is user-submitted and its editorial oversight is not strong. Regardless, since this is an article about the term and not the film I'm at a loss as to how IMDB is supposed to serve as a source for the article. Otto4711 15:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please at least read what you are pointing me toward and telling me to read. It says: "Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence. One exception being that film credits on IMDb, which are provided by the Writer's Guild of America, can be considered to be adequately reliable." My emphasis added. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, I did read it, even the big boldy-type letters. I stand by my paraphrase of it. And it still is not a reasonable source, reliable or otherwise, for this article. Yes, the movie exists. The article isn't about the movie. Otto4711 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge contents appropriately Taprobanus 14:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Merge to what? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep its a stub. We let stubs grow. SchmuckyTheCat
• Delete The page doesn't seem appropriate to an encyclopedia even if expanded. If someone wants to know a definition of a slang term they can buy a slang dictionary. NobutoraTakeda 16:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [1]
• Keep. "Chickenhawk" is very old (Victorian at least - it's used frequently in the Victorian novel/book My Secret Life) slang, but I'm concerned that this AfD is being brought as some kind of WP:POINT, one way or the other. --Charlene 16:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Y Strong Keep This is about as far from being a neologism as you can get, and is a properly sourced article with much room for encyclopedic expansion. Old and strongly entrenched sexual terminology isn't a "real subject for Wikipedia"? Sounds like either I don't like it or "it's foreign to me". VanTucky ^(talk) 17:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  If the term was as important as you make it out to be, then it would be listed on another page which deals with the topic it is slang for and wouldn't need its own page. NobutoraTakeda 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  First off, it's an article, not a "page". Second, your argument makes no sense. It would not have it's own article if it was a notable term? Generally something is considered more notable and worthy of encyclopedic treatment when it has a separate article from its parent topic. In this case, neither homosexuality nor pedophilia are appropriate merge options, as the the term is very expansive and can mean a variety of individuals and behaviors. I have to say that many of those in favor of deletion seem to be completely ignorant of the term's notability and frequency of usage in the gay community. Just because a term isn't frequently used in your culture, doesn't mean it's an obscure slang term. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  Wait, my argument makes no sense? You just said that its notable because it has an article. I don't see any real proof that the term is legitimate or used by any real source of information. If it can't fit into another page then it should just be outright deleted. NobutoraTakeda 17:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  I didn't say having an article makes it notable. I said that your idea that it should "be listed on another page which deals with the topic it is slang for and wouldn't need its own page" is wrong. It's notable because of the citations to independent sources. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  Chicken hawk is slang. If it cannot be mentioned on the pages dealing with what it is slang for, then it deserves no mention at all. NobutoraTakeda 18:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting opinion, but do you have a policy or guideline that says this? --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)]

Its common sense and it deals with notability. A slang word is inherently only notable as the word it is slang for, unless its a racial slur or equally notable words. Chickenhawk does not fit said definition. NobutoraTakeda 07:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO - "a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term". The mentions in the 2 articles are trivial and I'm removing the urbandictionary.com citation. Corpx 18:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a dictionary definition. Belongs in Wiktionary. Edison 20:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as nontrivial sexual terminology. Article cites sources. Chubbles 22:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I added one academic paper referring to it, and an academic discussion. DGG (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I searched the academic discussion and found nothing in it but a sentence or two that simply defined "chicken" and "chicken hawk" in this context. The academic article (behind a subscription wall) looks promising. Thanks for the tiny step forward. You changed my vote to "weak keep". Noroton 15:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Chubbles. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep to see where this article heads. It's only a stub and I have no objections to its current form. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 05:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and expand. This is a bad faith nomination. If it doesn't expand to a good article in a proper amount of time, we should renominate it. CaveatLector^Talk 15:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this is slang for an area of gay sexuality that is socially uncomfortable for people to talk about within gay culture which is also stigmatized let alone researched. Most of the gay slang articles are routinely vandalized and I see this as either an extension of homophobia by trying to defeat this culture from being represented on WP or the lack of empathy for gay culture or both. Benjiboi 05:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats a lovely bit of OR that you just produced. Any verifiable information to back up your claims? NobutoraTakeda 07:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware I would need to back up my vote with references. Can we agree that sex in general is a subject that is considered somewhat taboo and gay sex is probably more so and that intergenerational gay sex just a bit more taboo than both? Benjiboi 07:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep – It's a stub which looks just fine to me, other than the end seeming a bit defensive. When it's currently being considered for AfD, however, I would be too were I the article's authors. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —— Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems to pass our sourcing policies, it is an encyclopedic subject, and stubbiness is not a ground for deletion. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. In its current for the article seems well-sourced, and the term itself is well-known and notable (much more so than a lot of others I've seen). TAnthony 19:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well sourced, well-known, worthy of encyclopedic coverage, etc. Burntsauce 17:29, 20 July 2007 (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.