Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaymation

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaymation

Gaymation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable "subgenera". Google brings up only 102 hits, mostly clips on video sites. Oli Filth 12:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - mainly lists. Onnaghar (Talk) 12:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Do I post here or in the "discussion"? I'm highly confused as there is little discussion at all and I'm finding it very frustrating when this is a valid term used in the lgbt community and has a timestam of 5+ years in printed matter. Sadly, little is documented on Gaymation (gay animation) and the very reason for a Wiki entry is simply to have a base location for factual information documenting the history of Gaymation (gay animation). Sappyhucks 14:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If that is the case, then verifiable, independent, reliable sources should be cited from within this article, to back up this assertion. Oli Filth 14:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • They have been added via request - I would like to also add, based on there being very little documented, the fact finding process is not going to be an over night process. Is this going to become my next issue in a deletion string should Gaymation survive the current deletion nomination? Sappyhucks 15:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unless the article can clean up. I'm inclined to call WP:NEO. All it does is really define the term and list animations and/or full films in this subgenre. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't get this article. It's clearly a neologism and In my opinion doesn't meet the criteria for being an article so I'll say it should be probably deleted. 102 google hits isn't nearly enough for notability IMO. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this definitely falls under WP:NEO - it isn't in common use, and doesn't appear to be getting enough coverage or discussion to meet WP:RS. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:16, 30 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.