- 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. Randykitty ( talk) 13:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Bisexual lighting
- Bisexual lighting ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Alls ources are media reports of internet hubbub. All sources avoid giving any solid facts, which accounts for the vague nature of the article, which also fails to report any facts. Kleuske ( talk) 20:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep (article creator) - "Fails to report any facts" - except its use in
threenumerous movies, an award-winning episode of a series, andatwo music videos. Perhaps if you gave it more than 24 minutes after its creation it might have more content? violet/riga [talk] 20:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Firstly @
Kleuske: - not impressed by giving less than 30 minutes before shipping something to AfD. Putting that aside, there is certainly sufficient notability - even the sources given satisfy, let alone the wider coverage given.
WP:LASTING might have been a more workable justification, but I wouldn't say that applies either, as there is isn't some immediate flash in the pan method.
Nosebagbear (
talk) 20:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- @ Nosebagbear: Ah... 30 minutes does not suffice? How log should an article be live before nominating? A week? A month? A year? Also strongly disagree with the notability claim: WP:NOTNEWS. This is good for a few articles, then the hubbub dies down and we'll never hear of it again. The sources mentioned excel in vagueness and basically only summarize reddit and twitter conversations, which are notoriously fickle. Kleuske ( talk) 21:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment @ Kleuske: "Ah... 30 minutes does not suffice? How log should an article be live before nominating? A week? A month? A year?" - top quality hyperbolic strawman argument there. One or two hours would have sufficed well enough. Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- @
Nosebagbear: That abuse of the term "
strawman argument" is what the Good Dr. Randomercam dubbed a straw crow
[1]. I did not make an argument, I asked a question on preferred timelines (not even using hyperbole) and ipso facto, it's not a strawman argument, let alone a "top quality" one. But, basically, you're complaining about one and a half hour? Also, how am I bound to your personal preferences? Inquiring minds want to know.
Kleuske (
talk) 21:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- "[Y]ou're complaining about one and a half hour". Or 300%, depending on how you want to represent it. violet/riga [talk] 21:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- @
Nosebagbear: That abuse of the term "
strawman argument" is what the Good Dr. Randomercam dubbed a straw crow
[1]. I did not make an argument, I asked a question on preferred timelines (not even using hyperbole) and ipso facto, it's not a strawman argument, let alone a "top quality" one. But, basically, you're complaining about one and a half hour? Also, how am I bound to your personal preferences? Inquiring minds want to know.
Kleuske (
talk) 21:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: I hadn't heard of this term till I read this article about it today. To me it would seem notable enough for inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia – if not on its own then perhaps at something like Mood lighting. This is Paul ( talk) 22:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep: though some of the sources' inclusion of tweets devalues them a little bit, Vulture and Cosmopolitan in particular are good, and coverage is over a couple of months so WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. (To use Kleuske's argument against them, how long does coverage need to be sustained for before it's not considered temporary hubbub? A year? A decade? 50 years?) Also, I can't actually see the source using reddit comments – which one is this? — Bilorv (c) (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
References
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 07:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 07:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 07:38, 23 April 2018 (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.