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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bean queen[edit]

Bean queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Query What is the specific violation of WP:V in this case? Navou ^talk 04:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable" (from WP:N). Once notability is established through sourcing an article with "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable", a reader can then verify that the article's claims are supported by the sources. As this article stands, there is nothing to verify because no sources are cited to establish its notability. See? CyberAnth 05:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. None of these mass nominations are in good faith. What specifically does this article violate? You copied the same generic shit in every Afd. --- RockMFR 05:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Might that be because they are all on the same grounds? Also, if you read my comments here, I have quite clearly explained the grounds. CyberAnth
  • Comment This isn't an argument for keeping a dictionary definition article, it is just an ad hominem attack on the nominator. Please don't do this. Jkelly 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep article quality is not a deletion criterion, the article asserts notability, but needs references. Consider tagging for cleanup or sourcing before reaching for the AfD subst. Wintermut3 05:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - but WINAD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyberAnth (talk • contribs).

It's rather more than a dic def already, since it's discussing how the term is used, by whom, and how it is received. That's social context; encyclopedic content rather than mere dic def. — coelacan talk — 05:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This scattershot name-every-policy business just won't do. Notability is asserted. Yes, it needs reference but quality of articles is not a ground for deletion whatever your objection to their content. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 05:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - It is notable if you consider notable an un-sourced statement that "Bean queen is a term used in the English-speaking gay community to refer to a [white] person" who dates Hispanics. How is that notable? "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable" (from WP:N). Where are the sources? Without them, there is nothing to even verify. Moreover, how is Bean queen not a neologism? "Neologism are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities" (from WP:NEO). All the supposed assertion of notability in the article has done is assert it is a neologism. And WINAD. CyberAnth 05:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think it might help everyone if you calmed down. Your reason for nomination to which I responded was just a collection of links to policy with no discernible argument, which have cut and pasted from every one of these numerous AfDs. I'm sure you have an important point to make but, instead of presenting your rationale to objecting to the article in the first place, you seem to prefer to respond in an unnecessarily hostile manner to whoever opposes you. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 05:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep or merge & redirect Speedy Keep Copy & paste nom. The concept of a "bean queen" is more than the definition of the term, so WP:WINAD doesn't apply. Notability is established and neologism is denied by its commonplace usage within media and popular culture (~20,000 Google hits). Verifiability is no reason to delete the article, and the prevalence of the concept outside the article denies allegations of original research. None of this information was difficult to come by, and the lack of due diligence in making this nomination concerns me. Are you trying to make a point? --Ssbohio 06:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, and after talking with JzG, I'm amending to show my support for either keeping the article or merging its content into gay slang with a redirect. If the text becomes large enough, it can always be broken back out into a separate article. --Ssbohio 18:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - keep per discussion, speedy per WP:SNOW. This goes a little farther than being a mere dicdef. If anything, it may be transwiki'd to wiktionary. --Dennisthe2 09:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have added three sources, one from a "gay" publication, one from a fundamentalist Christian publication, and one from a Spanish language publication (to show that it's used there as well). Hope this takes care of the sources... I am going to add a paragraph about the 'straight' use, as I came across tons of Myspace gals using this word! SkierRMH 09:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - apologie, should have been references/external links, not sources, so marked. SkierRMH 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• http://www.unc.edu/glbtsa/lambda/articles/29/1/attraction.html - only mentions the term (once) as a slang word, does not discuss it, is not sufficient because the term must have been the subject of sources, not merely mentioned in it. WINAD.

Comment The article is about various attractions and the reasons one group may/may not be attracted to another, which does show some reasoning behind the term. How does Wiktionary is not a dictionary apply to the explanation of the term?SkierRMH 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.um.es/tonosdigital/znum10/estudios/O-Navarro.htm - is a glossary of slang terms for homosexuals. Does not discuss bean queen, only mentions it as a slang word. WINAD.

Commment is not just a glossary of slang terms, it is a discussion of the etymology and philology of the term from the Hispanic perspective. Again, how does Wiktionary is not a dictionary apply to giving an etymology & philology of a term in it's non-English uses (in English, OK, but cross-linguistically?) in relation to the subject at hand? SkierRMH 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.antipas.org/books/homo_revolution/hr_gloss.html - again just a glossary, and a source of clearly dubious reliability from a partisan source and thus cannot be used. WINAD.

Comment I have removed this one until I can get the correct link to the book itself, as it's discussed in-depth therein. SkierRMH 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Myspace cannot be used as a source in Wikipedia. Check the policies.CyberAnth 11:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Um, you might have looked at the article, I did not source Myspace, I mentioned it here only to show that the use of the term is broader than used here. A simple Google search [1] will show thousands of non-gay uses (not only in myspace) of the term. SkierRMH 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. Johntex\^talk 11:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't an argument for keeping a dictionary definition article, it is just an ad hominem attack on the nominator. Please don't do this. Jkelly 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and warn nominator about being civil to other editors. There is no need for rudeness on WP; if anything, it makes one's arguments look weaker. --Charlene 12:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that there is a pending discussion about the nominator's behaviour ongoing at WP:ANI (just go Ctrl+F for the nominators name, there's a couple of threads). Rather than make a suggestion here which is unlikely to be carried out, you and everyone else is welcome to give their thoughts on this "AfD-spree" matter in an attempt to build concensus and to move forward. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Daniel. --Dennisthe2 18:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't an argument for keeping a dictionary definition article, it is just an ad hominem attack on the nominator. Please don't do this. Jkelly 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: Don't agree with reasons stated for deletion. Atom 13:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting. Atom 13:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unsourced slang dicdef. The best reference I can find for this is Urban Dictionary - enough said. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the nominator is just trying to rid Wikipedia of sex-related articles. In the case of another recent AfD, he switched arguments after two days when nobody agreed [2] and is not even trying to see if references for these articles exist before nominating as became clear in yet another of his AfDs [3]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't an argument for keeping a dictionary definition article, it is just an ad hominem attack on the nominator. Please don't do this. Jkelly 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nominator's history aside, this term does not appear to be the least bit notable. Google hits are useless as they bring up many (I'd say mostly) unrelated uses of the two words together (ex: "L.L. Bean Queen Size Bed," etc). Wavy G 18:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice - respondants to this AfD may be interested in this proposal at WP:V to clarify that article improvement is preferable to deletion or blanking. Johntex\^talk 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. not even close to being a notable topic for an encyclopedia article. --JWSchmidt 21:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep bad faith nom. Artw 21:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't an argument for keeping a dictionary definition article, it is just an ad hominem attack on the nominator. Please don't do this. Jkelly 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Artw Albatross2147 23:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Artw has made no argument to agree with, but has just insulted the nominator. Is that what you're agreeing with? Jkelly 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a textbook dictionary definition. Transwiki to Wiktionary if they want it, or redirect to Gay slang, but there is no indication that we can build an encyclopedia article out of this. Jkelly 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral maybe it is best to put it in the Wiktionary and then get the article here later, if or when the word becomes more well known, for instance when there is an article with a headline that uses "Bean Queen" in it, or when there is movie where it is used, etc. etc... Pernambuco 00:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article has been around less than a month. The similar article Rice queen is fully sourced and goes well beyond a dicdef and there is no reasonable doubt that Bean queen will as well. An unsourced tag would do rather than deletion. Mallanox 03:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• unsure really there are no reliable sources so this one looks like original research to me Yuckfoo 10:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, one 'source' seems to contradict the other. Is a "bean queen" a Mexican homosexual or a non-Hispanic homosexual who dates Hispanic homosexuals? The two uses appear to be separate and contradictory neologisms. -- Donald Albury 12:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.--HisSpaceResearch 20:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (forgot to actually make a vote earlier). It's rather more than a dic def already, since it's discussing how the term is used, by whom, and how it is received. That's social context; encyclopedic content rather than mere dic def. — coelacan talk — 00:08, 10 January 2007 (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.