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 userfied. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chapstick lesbian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Procedural nomination: article re-creation and contested prod. The article seems to have little salvageable content, and is written in a manifestly unencyclopedic fashion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect protection. This is a lesser known variant on Lipstick lesbian and after removing all the un-reliable sourcing and original research we have one sourced sentence which can be sent off to that article we have nothing. Protection may or may not be needed for the redirect but the consensus, IMHO, got it right several years ago and little has changed to show this term has become into widespread usage - likely because lipstick lesbian has fallen in use as being too ill-defined and Chapstick being tied to a brand that has limited appeal across cultures. Move the one sentence Redirect to Lipstick lesbian and get rid of the rest. -- Banjeboi 01:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lipstick lesbian; not enough evidence that this variation is notable. JJL (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Full-protect and redirect to Lipstick lesbian. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect This reads as more of an attack page to me on the subject than an anywhere near serious discussion of the subject, and the term is hardly as notable as the original lipstick term. Nate • (chatter) 05:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect Agree with Nate. It's tone is way too close to an attack page. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 06:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lipstick lesbian and protect Unverifiable. What can be verified (that the term exists and its origin) fits better in the context of a larger article.Sjö (talk) 07:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect protection. I took time to go through every source, and apart from the first these were all blogs, wikis, dating sites, etc. The only exception was of dubious reliability, and amounted to one short sentence - which was more appropriate for Wictionary than an encyclopedia article. I tagged then deleted all the unreliable materail, then placed a speedy deletion tag on the grounds of WP:NOTDIC - which was reverted by the sole creating editor back to the earlier unsourced, unreliable, inaccurate, synthetic entry that apart from one mention of the term was all WP:OR. The opprtunity to retain the minimal reference as a Wictionary entry is now in the past, and this needs to go, serve as a redirect to Lipstick lesbian as per the AfD three years ago, and protection to prevent this happening again. Mish (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect protection. The term is just a slightly witty extension of Lipstick lesbian, and best treated there.YobMod 09:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Let's cool it with all this sockpuppetry, fancy single-purpose user pages, and foreign politics. And yes, I am responsible for most of the article, lest there be any doubt as to the propriety of my vote here. Deepmath (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Were there any accusations of all that within this discussion? Please, keep your comments confined to why this article is notable. And you didn't answer at all why you felt this should be kept beyond contributing content for it. As far as I see it though if you did contribute the majority of the content of this article, it certainly needs to be in a much more serious tone than in it's current offensive and attack-ridden form. Nate • (chatter) 22:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The article in not attacking anyone. It is describing the identity of a certain non-negative stereotype of lesbian. Deepmath (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original neologism Cynical (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I believe Ellen DeGeneres is credited with this "original neologism", if only because she happened to be the first one to say it on TV. The broad use of this term, as slang, is well referenced in the article. Perhaps mention should be made in the article of DeGeneres, despite the fact that she better fits into the soft butch category. (Notwithstanding her short hair, we must commend her for her practicality.) Slang terms often have different definitions that vary widely over time and place. We also have articles for stone femme as well as lipstick lesbian. There is a whole Category:LGBT slang on Wikipedia. There is no valid reason to single out chapstick lesbian for butchery and deletion. Deepmath (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not only is this remarkably unsourced, it is just... bad encyclopaedic content. How to recognise a Chapstick lesbian? "I'm a big girl. I can work on my car if I want to or need to without losing my femininity. I just have to put my hair up first. And yes, I know how to bake bread, too."? I'm not overly familiar with all the LGBT lingo, but this article is beyond hope and has nothing that would be merged into Lipstick lesbian. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:12, 25 July 2009 (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.