Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boi (slang)

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boi (slang)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub that only focuses on a word in its LGBT sense and makes no mention to its usage in meme culture and in common slang as a shortened term for boy. Thanks, (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thanks, (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In general, people do not go around using this term as an alternative term for boy, and so it should not be presented ~~that way~~ as some general usage thing in the lead, especially in the lead sentence. To repeat what I stated before when reverting you the first time on the WP:Lead sentence, "The term is firmly established within the LGBT community. What sources state that heterosexuals commonly use this term?" You stated, "[C]ommon slang as a shortened term for boy." What reliable source supports that claim? How is the meme usage the primary usage of the term? Like YorkshireLad stated below, "based on a cursory Google, with less sourcing seemingly available discussing the word in the more general meme context." As you know, I reverted your dictionary-sourced definition again. You cited this Dictionary.com source. Well, this Dictionary.com source states, "informal [...] a lesbian who adopts a boyish appearance or manner." CollinsDictionary.com states, "informal [...] a lesbian who adopts a boyish appearance or manner." Various other dictionary sources state the same. But regardless of what dictionary sources state, it's not uncommon for dictionaries to give plain and/or outdated definitions of terms. As we know, they commonly do...especially since they list different senses, including historical senses, of terms. This is a topic covered by academic sources, not just dictionaries. And per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, a topic like this should mainly be relying on academic sources. Per WP:Not a dictionary, even articles about terms should go beyond a dictionary definition. We should be looking at what academic sources state about this topic. And I know what they state about it. They are focused on the LGBT community. And as for popular culture material? See WP:"In popular culture" content and WP:Trivia. No Wikipedia article is obligated to have an "In popular culture" section. And, in fact, Wikipedia articles are usually better off without such content. I'll alert WP:LGBT to this AfD. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Not enough for an article on its own, merge with Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities --Whiteguru (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not seeing a rationale for deletion here, and, as the sources already cited in the article demonstrate, the word seems to pass WP:GNG based on the LGBTQ+ context alone. The fact that the article didn't cover other uses of the word (the sense in which I've come across it most, though, based on a cursory Google, with less sourcing seemingly available discussing the word in the more general meme context) doesn't seem to be a reason to delete an article about the sense that is well-sourced—and, indeed, the nom has subsequently expanded the article to cover more senses. Merging to Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities doesn't really work because of the other senses, as now covered. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 16:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 16:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge elsewhere. It appears to me that LoganBlade nominated this article on a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT basis. Also, he is for having the lead sentence simply define the term as an alternative spelling for boy, with no mention of the very WP:Due lesbian aspect or the LGBT community in general, and for unduly positioning the popular/meme content ahead of the actual topic. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The existing reference to Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture specifically discusses the use of the word "boi" for several pages. Same for Gay L.A. : a history of sexual outlaws, power politics, and lipstick lesbians. The nomination doesn't give a deletion rationale; it's a suggestion for expansion. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid deletion rationale provided, and the existing sourcing is more than adequate to establish wiki-notability. XOR'easter (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons and sourcing identified above. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in line with what the users above said. If the OP wants to add content to the page, they should do that instead of trying to delete the page. Deleting a page is not a positive way to generate discussion on a topic. Anyway, I found an article in Mother Jones which defines boi as "a boyish lesbian, a soft butch (aka butch lite), a biological boy who hangs in queer circles, or a member of OutKast," which links to an article in AfterEllen. Also, Montclair University's list of LGBTQ terminology gives a similar definition, as does a SFGate article and another article on MSNBC's website. There are a number of other good sources, like the origins of the term described in Mediated Boyhoods: Boys, Teens, and Young Men in Popular Media and Culture and an article in New York magazine titled "Where the Bois Are". And there are even more sources as well, as this is just scratching the surface. Historyday01 (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2020 (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.