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 no consensus. --Coredesat 06:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable, unsourced neologism; purely Original Research. Further, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Leflyman^Talk 18:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete wiki is not urban dictionary DesertSky85451 19:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --דניאל - Dantheman531 21:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep though I use and prefer the term lesbro. Let someone start sourcing it. It's certainly not unverifiable. It's got traction as being in real world use by a simple google search. So, when sourced, not a neologism either and probably has some age. This is way more than a dic def and describes the valid phenomenon of men who hang around lesbians, the reverse of fag hag. SchmuckyTheCat 02:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep - would like to see sources —Ashley Y 04:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• merge I'm not sure how recent a term has to be to be a neologism. I was referred to as a "dyke tyke" by a would be girlfriend who tended to the lesbian side of bisexual back in 2000, so it is at least six years old. However, it should probably be merged with the fag hag article. Brian Schlosser42 14:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A neologism is any recent term created by an individual or group which does not have widespread recognition. In this case, it's a slang term that has extremely limited recognition, according to Google -- which shows only around 1300 entries when Wikipedia is subtracted out. Wikipedia is not "a usage guide or slang and idiom guide". This plainly violates WP article policy. --Leflyman^Talk

• The article is meant to cover several related terms, some of which are more popular than the current title. Maybe if the title was "Article that discusses men who hang out with lesbians" and had a section covering slang terms this wouldn't be an AfD about a neologism. But instead we use common names. SchmuckyTheCat 17:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NEO requires reliable sources about the term. The article evidences a couple sources that use the term, but none that are about the term. GRBerry 15:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NEO is a guideline, not a policy, and so cannot require anything. Reporting widespread usage of the term is non-novel, non-interpretive, primary sourcing. Yes, the article badly needs secondary sourcing, but thats a reason for a needs sourcing template, not a deletion criteria. SchmuckyTheCat 17:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• From WP:RULES: "A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus." Guidelines do have the weight of Wikipedia consensual practice, but are more flexible than policies, which are the core principals (which this article also fails to adhere to).--Leflyman^Talk 18:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well, we do have a published book that accurately defines the term. [1]. I was going to back off of this one until I found the book, now it's an obvious keep for me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The book you've mentioned as a reference is a humor work from 1996 called "So You Want To Be a Lesbian", not exactly a Reliable Source. That same page also posits "Celebudyke" and "Cyberdyke" as terms. The only source I see at Google Books that might qualify is the single mention in "A Companion to African-American Studies" -- however that mention doesn't define or discuss the term as a concept, and by placing "dyke tyke" in quotes confirms it as a slang term. --Leflyman^Talk 18:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it makes it any less reliable as a source It's not exactly meant to be a "serious" term, so this fits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, yes, that does make it a less reliable source. The foremost rule of Wikpedia is that it aims to be an encyclopedia (as opposed to guide to pop culture) -- which means articles, particularly on controversial topics, must be based on academic or "serious" scholarship. See: Secondary_source. A single entry in a humor book does not fulfill the obligations of verifiability for an article. Further, the mere mention of the term does not create a reference for the full scope of Original Research presented here. The only place this term should exist would be in List_of_gay_slang_words_and_phrases -- which itself should be put up for review by AfD.--Leflyman^Talk 22:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:RS, which is under some discussion but still a worthwhile reference for the moment. "However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on...may only be found on what would otherwise be considered unreliable....When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included." It's more than a-okay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Putting aside that the particular section of the WP:RS guideline is highly disputed, you appear to have not given due attention to the last sentence you quoted, "When a substanial body of material is available..." -- there's the exact problem with this article: there's no body of material. 1300 entries on Google is hardly notable. By that metric, I should be an article. --Leflyman^Talk 02:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe you should be! --badlydrawnjeff

• Sorry but probably not. --דניאל - Dantheman531 17:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

talk 10:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia != dictionary. Of course, this does not show up in the OED. This might be verifiable enough to warrant a sentence in List of gay slang words and phrases but is insufficiently notable as a neologism to warrant an entire article. —ptk✰fgs 03:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article isn't a dicdef, and would read the same if you did a find-replace of "dyke tyke" to "lesbro" Would you think the same if the article was titled "Straight men who hang out with lesbians"? SchmuckyTheCat 03:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very weak keep. While I grant that the phenonmenon exists, I've personally never heard the term in real-life use. In fact, the only place I've ever even seen in is on Wikipedia. Sources are going to be a major problem in the article. Notability is another problem, if the only sources are on the Internet and there are so few of them... Exploding Boy 16:23, 17 October 2006 (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.