|
List of drag queens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))
List of Drag Queens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))
Overturn - closing admin deleted the article barely three hours after the AFD was opened, citing WP:BLP. This deletion is based on a deeply flawed premise, namely that being called a "drag queen" is so controversial that WP:BLP demands its removal. The introductory text noted that the list was for people who are drag queens or female impersonators. The only name cited in the AFD in support of this deletion was "Liam Sullivan" although it's not clear from the context whether the editor was referring to Liam Sullivan (who is dead and so beyond the reach of BLP) or Liam Kyle Sullivan (who wears female clothing in his Internet videos and so would seem to qualify as a female impersonator but if not that's an editing question). The mention of the stars of To Wong Foo in the AFD is a red herring, as none of them were ever included in the list because they are not known as either drag queens or female impersonators. No one other than the closing admin indicated that there might be issues with either WP:NOT (the list did not violate any provision of that policy that I can see) or WP:LIST (the list was well within that guideline). Given that in 2008 we ought to be well beyond the notion that being called a drag queen or a female impersonator is "controversial," given that there were no names included on the list that did not have a corresponding Wikipedia article and given that the solution to sourcing issues is to tag for sourcing rather than mow the article down, the close is unsupportable. Otto4711 (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note from closing admin The BLP policy is very clear on this--unsourced controversial information about living people should be removed without discussion. In this case, the list had been on Wikipedia since 2005, and in that time not one item on that list had been sourced. I'm of the mind that such a list can be restored IF each entry is sourced (though whether such a list would pass muster under WP:NOT is debatable). The previous version, however, simply could not stay on Wikipedia without sourcing. Blueboy96 18:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, you are proceeding from an entirely false premise that being called a drag queen or a female impersonator is "controversial." This is the same sort of homophobic mindset that allowed Liberace to recover damages for being alleged to be homosexual in 1957. It's 51 years later and being called a drag queen or a female impersonator is not libelous. If there is some question that someone called for instance Hedda Lettuce has an issue with being identified as a drag queen when she parades around New York City in a four-foot tall green wig, then by all means if you restore the list I can add any number of reliable sources. "Unsourced" does not mean "unsourceable" and the solution here is to tag for sources instead of hauling out the axe. Otto4711 (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Absolutely agreed. It's not controversial to call someone a drag queen, when they are one. I'm reminded of when you, SatyrTN, reverted me twice for including Lucas Silveira in a transgender catagory. Maybe it's controversial to call certain people transgender, but when every article about Lucas Silveira and The Cliks mentions that he's transgender, calling him so is not controversial in the least. Bring the list back, and delete entrants who are not drag queens, as they come up. -- AvatarMN (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um - not to put to fine a point on it, but in that article, you added a category without any indication in the text about why it was there: [1] - that's in no way analogous to this situation. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Delete Agree with closing admin, unsourced controversial information doesn't have a place on Wikipedia. And I personally dislike lists overall, as many of them don't tend to serve much of a purpose since they are so long. There is already a category (Category:Drag queens), which essentially makes a list. I think a fair compromise is to have the category and not have the list.--Terrillja (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you prefer a category, which can't be sourced, to a list that can be? And once again, calling a drag queen a drag queen is not controversial. Your personal prejudice against lists is both irrelevant and contrary to WP:CLN which instructs that lists and categories work together synergistically. Otto4711 (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly is calling a gay man who performs in drag a drag queen controversial? Is there, perhaps, United States case law in which calling someone a drag queen was found to be defamatory? Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Recreate with sources - You don't need permission, just do it. Kaldari (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If an admin would userfy the deleted article to a subpage of my talk page so I don't have to waste time re-compiling the list to comport with this nonsensical decision I would appreciate it. Otto4711 (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think this can be closed now. Stifle (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Whether it's a list or a category, its should exist as long as its backed up by sources in the list or article. Alansohn (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist for the full five days. No significant rationale for the speedy close. Allow discussion to take place. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- relist per Fuch. Give it 5 days and give people opportunity to improve the sourcing. If necessary we can keep the article in a primarily blanked state for the duration of the AfD including during that time only those entries for which we have specific sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: For further contributors to this DRV, please bear in mind that the article has been recreated. Stifle (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse with reservations Saying someone is a drag queen is contentious, not necessarily defamatory. I think we need to lower the outrage about possible homophobia enough here to come to grips with the fact that this was (according to the deleting admin) an unsourced list of living persons with a contentious inclusion criteria. I would have preferred that we wait the 5 days of discussion to determine how the community felt (or how we might scrap and recreate the list), but removing contentious material without discussion is permissible. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly is it contentious to call Ru Paul a drag queen? Is there someone out there who is going to take offense at the notion of calling Ru Paul a drag queen? Has Ru Paul ever stated that he's offended by being called a drag queen? Has anyone on the list ever objected to being called a drag queen or a female impersonator, other than Charles Pierce who is dead and beyond the scope of WP:BLP? Otto4711 (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we didn't have a source it would be contentious. We can find a dozen sources that say "Ru Paul is a drag queen". This is different from saying that "Joe Schmoe is a drag queen". My point was closer to this: we can agree that labeling someone as a homosexual is contentious without having to say that labeling someone as a homosexual is defamatory. Likewise with drag queen. It isn't defamatory, but a reasonable person could object to the categorization and ask for a source. Protonk (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You seriously think anyone would contend that RuPaul, Lypsinka, Justin Bond, etc are drag queens? Saying Wesley Snipes was would be contended, so remove his name when it gets added. You're arguing that calling anyone a drag queen can be reasonably contended? That's... wrong. -- AvatarMN (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure we can disagree on this. All "contented" means is that I can and should ask for a source. I could reasonable say "You're arguing that I can say anyone is a drag queen without a source?". I don't think hyperbole helps either of us. There are people on that list who are well known (and noted in sources) as drag queens. IF their article or the entry in the list cites sources, no problem. Others who don't have an article or whose article doesn't say "person X is a drag queen" need a source to substantiate the claim that they are a drag queen. I fail too see how this is a radical position. Protonk (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Every entry on the list had an associated Wikipedia article, so if you're now saying that their being a drag queen being sourced in their article is sufficient to overcome your BLP objections, then we're golden. Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with that. If every entry point toward a sourced article where the "drag queen" claim was substantiated, then it's ok. I think, to eliminate confusion the list should be written with its own list of references culled from the target article, but that is an editorial question. Protonk (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well-spotted Otto. Their own article source the claim, there's no need for the list to. Surely the article wikilinked each name on the list to the article. -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn the decision and reinstate the original article (if that';s the correct status at the moment); well known category of performer, and almost everyone who would possible be in it self-identifies and has multiple good sources. It's not a category representing one's private sexuality, but one's public self-presentation. We wouldn't put someone in the list without an article in WP, and the article would necessarily be sourced about this. The only reason for deletion is that we couldn't do this right, and, as Protonk implies, to assume we at Wikipedia are too homophobic to deal with this objectively.DGG (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - perhaps I have been away from Wikipedia too long, but as I understand the way we do things round here, we do not delete stuff just because they have no citations. We delete things when there is no way to provide citations e.g. untrue information, unnotable people etc. It is perfectly possible to prove that most of the people on the list are drag queen and indeed SatyrTN is doing a commendable job of providing them - whoever deleted this list needs to go back to admin coaching, because this was a completely unjustified delete. I won't even get into the inanities of labelling someone as a drag queen apparently being defamatory. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 16:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The world will not end in five days. If extreme action was needed then someone should have blanked the page and let the AfD run. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Close this DRV as unneeded. List has been recreated, old version userfied. I think we agree that we shouldn't have unsourced entries here. Both because we shouldn't have list entries without sources in general (good luck) and because it could be used as an attack per BLP. Hobit (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
