Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore public gay parties (3rd nomination)

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. Apparently a consensus to keep the article has been reached. Tone 11:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore public gay parties

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

There are no sources listed and it seems impossible to verify if the topic is notable. No sources have been added in four years. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely delete. As said above. Endofskull (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear notable, no sources and could be classed as OR.--NavyBlue84 16:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LGBT politics are a significant issue in Singapore today, as their social acceptability and even legality are so borderline. To credibly delete this on the grounds of being unreferenced and non-notable, we have to believe that either these events never took place, or that large public events took place and were yet uncovered by any sources. Neither of these are believable. So who wants to delete a large and significant article, on the basis of no-one yet having done the required legwork, even if such refs might not even require substantive changes to the article? We're not just here to exercise policy because we can, we're supposed to be building coverage of topics like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sources have been added in four years. The problem is not that the event or events never took place. The problems rather are that the topic of "Singapore public gay parties" in general seems of doubtful notability and that the entire content of the article appears to be original research. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to sound rude, but WP:SOFIXIT would seem applicable. Doing the legwork to source some of this is clearly more effort than listing for deletion, but it's also a far greater contribution to a useful encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legwork is by all means welcome; it would seem more effectively done, however, at a page on the specific event. This page may even impede such work by funneling it into a non-notable category filled with OR. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So create an article, with significant reliable secondary sources, on 'LGBT politics in Singapore'. Just because the general political issue is "significant" does not mean that every expression of that political sentiment is. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's already at LGBT culture in Singapore. This is a sub-article, on one topic withint the broader, over the last few years. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^prattle 18:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced, no assertion of notability per WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^prattle 18:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication of notability -- (newly-introduced) sources appear to be solely WP:SELFPUB. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DNA is an independent and notable magazine in another country. The Straits Times should need no explanation! Although the Fridae refs are less than perfect, these parties were mostly organized by the major local gay media channel, who have naturally covered their own events in detail. Mostly they're there for verbatim quotes of the police statements, so if you can find a citable direct source from the police, that would be even better. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed The Straits Times among all the ref-spam on the '04 ban (5 sources for a single sentence?). A lifestyle-glossy is better than SPS but, at best, only moderately prominent/reliable, and again its only cited for a single sentence. (Making the depth of coverage by either source questionable.) "...who have naturally covered their own events in detail" = absolutely worthless for establishing notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that this violates WP:SELFPUB #5: "the article is not based primarily on such sources." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relist reason: please discuss the several sources inserted after November 15. Sandstein 07:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources are relevant to the topic of Singapore gay parties in general and only mention specific events. There are plenty of 36th and 37th birthday parties but not a page about them. Topic still doesn't seem notable. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge I search on keywords such as IndigNation, gay and Singapore and immediately find substantial coverage in journals such as New York Times. There is therefore a notable topic here and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion, in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the linked to NYT article gives only two sentences of coverage to these parties. This is insubstantial coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite adequate to show that the parties in question have been noticed by international news media. They therefore merit coverage in a larger article such as LGBT history in Singapore. This therefore ceases to be a matter of deletion and becomes instead a matter of ordinary editing - merger, splitting, whatever. We do not delete in such cases because we would lose information, contrary to our editing policy. This is not a GA/FA review - we are simply establishing that there is something here which merits further work. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But grossly inadequate to meet the actual standard of WP:GNG: "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which is explicitly the relevant criteria for an AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC) [Miscopied material from another guideline, now replaced with correct material.][reply]

No, the AFD process explicitly and emphatically states, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". This is the case here and so the article should be retained for further work. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as that process makes frequent and prominent mention of notability guidelines, it is clear that in order to be "fixed through normal editing", such editing must result in the article meeting these guidelines. This means that "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is necessary. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is ample news coverage of their gay parties. [1] Read through the titles and summaries and you'll see they had coverage for themselves, as well as for the government banning some, etc. Asia Sentinel writes: "The dancer and his white fundoshi were part of the show at Nation, Asia's biggest gay circuit party, now in its sixth and final year. Gay men and women from all over the world, but mostly from Asia, paid $180 for a three-day pass to dance to international DJ's, party around the pool and watch Japanese go-go boys and drag shows at the luxury hotel." So they get coverage. Dream Focus 17:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point seems to be getting lost here that coverage of specific events does not mean that any common category they fall into is notable in itself. There is already a page called IndigNation that is about a specific celebration in Singapore and more can surely be added as sources allow. I can also find ample news coverage of 36th and 37th birthday parties but it would be utterly absurd to have a page on these topics. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are other gay parties listed besides that one, and they have coverage also. Being public gay parties in the nation of Singapore, and having laws passed to affect all of them, makes them something in common. Dream Focus 19:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the Asia Sentinel article. (It would be good if you gave a direct link next time.) This source does give significant coverage to parties as a topic but now there is a different issue because it is mostly about a party in Thailand, not Singapore. So maybe there should be an article called Gay parties in Asia. The source concludes:

If this really is the last of Nation it will likely mark an end – at least for a while – to large scale gay circuit parties in Asia.

Making it about Asia seems faithful to the source and I would not object to such a page. It should also be possible to find substantially more sources to back up notability because, well, we all know in Thailand they do all kinds of crazy shit

... so if we want to move sourced content to an Asia page and redirect I would not object. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of this article is not about parties, it's about Singapore - in particular the change in government attitude (more than policy) which went from accepting these overt displays of traditionally unacceptable behaviour to a more recent retrenchment against them. "Asia" is far too broad, as there's no "government of Asia" for which we'd be describing a policy shift. Although there has been a move to Thailand as a venue, this is still a Singaporean event by proxy. "Gay parties in Thailand" would quite obviously be an article of little import at all: Thai culture is well known for its liberality and it's not news for such parties to take place. The significance here is where there's still a link, even when geographically displaced, to Singapore. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The significance here is where the sources (1, 2, 3, 4) say there is significance. From the first source listed:

Billed as an event "empowering gay Asia," the party attracted people from across the continent, as well from Australia, Europe and the United States -- all welcome arrivals at beachfront hotels still working to finish rebuilding from the December 26 tsunami which killed more than 2,400 tourists last year.

"It's for a good cause. It supports gay Asian pride," said Adrian Ho, 32, a travel agent from Los Angeles who flew here specifically for the party where revellers in bathing suits have spent their days under the sun at the pool or the beach before dancing the night away.

—K. the Surveyor (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now moved all content introduced by Andy Dingley into LGBT history in Singapore by year (2000s), except for what seemed clearly self-published. That article's topic does meet the notability guidelines. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your vandalism here. Please stop allowing your religious views to influence your editing of articles on topics and lifestyles of which you so obviously disapprove. You might also benefit from reading some of our policy on sources: the need for 3rd party sourcing is one thing to demonstrate notability, but there is no blanket ban on the use of such sources where they contribute to articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the personal attacks and unfounded accusations. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that it has met the criterion for notability: while there may not be one source devoted to this subject, the aggregate mass of sources is enough. Although, I think it could shortened a little... Francis Bond (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn The sources unearthed by Dream Focus show that you cannot say that "Singapore gay parties" doesn't have significant coverage as a topic, so despite that I think the new sources would be better used elsewhere and that there is currently one sentence of article content with a non-promotional source, I am forced to conclude that there's no policy basis for deletion. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2010 (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.