Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AKFD/existence

The material discussed is currently part of anti-gay slogan

I can see no justification WHATSOEVER for this page. If some bigots had a slogan 'gas all jews', 'kill all Pakis' or 'fuck Palestinians' would we carry it too? JTD 22:30 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

No, of course not. The major difference seems to be that, grammatically speaking, "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" is not an imperative (as opposed to the examples you mention). Also, to me it seems perfectly NPOV. --KF 22:41 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Could we delete this page if we mentioned "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" on both the Sebastian Bach and Westboro Baptist Church pages?

Hey, User:AxelBoldt, since you created this page... Want to tell us what the point is?

The point is an interesting connection between corporate America, heavy metal music, christian fundamentalism and hate speech. What more do you want from a six-sentence article? AxelBoldt 18:24 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know what everybody's problem is. I found an interesting bit of information and wrote an article about it. AxelBoldt 23:06 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

I don't see the problem either. No one would suggest removing slogans like "Ein Volk - ein Reich - ein Führer" from an encylopaedia article on the Nazis. I can very well imagine someone coming across this phrase and wondering where it originated. If they then google it, a separate entry on Wikipedia will give them all they need to know. --KF 23:13 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

The basic problem with this is specificity: What is it? 'It' is -a slogan, and a t-shirt, under the category of "Hate speech/Forms/Events/Details/" The idea of seeding a whole encyclopedic area of research into hated or discrimination of homosexuals is valid, and it doesnt necessary have to be from top down... but in this case, the specificity is highly suspect - and your premise that "no one would object" KF, you assumes that you knows where the boundaries of what's objecitionable is, yet the article itself is an perfect example of what is potentially objectionable: conclusively demonstrating that you're not in tune with the incidental notions of NPOV and encyclopaedic content. -'Vert

So whereas I just think I know what might be objectionable, you actually know what is and what isn't -- is that what you're trying to say? Apart from that, is there anything you are not accusing me of? --KF 23:56 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

This article has been placed on the Votes for Deletion page. JTD 23:17 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Its really unneccessary, especially in the balance of issues. Consider the basic idea: Does this phrase, carry enough meaning to warrant an article? Is a whole essay on Hate speech toward homosexuals to be titled : "Aids Kills Fags Dead' phrase" - certainly not, Toker. What if i were to write: "Death to the Kikes", with the content:

BOOBY-TRAPPED ANTISEMITIC SIGN INJURES WOMAN TRYING TO REMOVE IT. However, not only progress but peril, too, was dramatized during President Bush's visit to Russia. The day after he attended a Russian Orthodox service and spent time in a synagogue, a booby-trapped poster with an antisemitic slogan exploded and seriously injured a Russian doctoral student, Tatyana Sapunova, 28, who lost sight in one eye and needs a series of surgical procedures. According to local media reports, upon noticing the message "Death to the Kikes" daubed in large black paint on a sign, she pulled to the side of the highway 20 miles southwest of Moscow, near a turnoff to Vnukovo Airport. She got out of the car and tried to yank the sign out of the ground. The blast triggered by her touch had the force of 100 to 200 grams of TNT, according to the Russian news agency Interfax. Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov said he would take the case under his personal control. "All incidents of extremism or racial intolerance will be handled with the maximum strictness allowed by law," he told Interfax.

'Nuf said: -'Vert

There is no place for this kind of crap in Wikipedia. IT DOES NOTHING BUT DRIVE PEOPLE AWAY. Move the text as a sub ibn an article on discrimination or wherever appropriate. Then delete the damn page so that vistiors to Wikipedia arent't subject this kind of language. User:Black Widow

Actually, as a gay person myself I found this article to be quiet informative and in not at all offensive. I find the thought of people sanitising history, especially gay history, for the sake of saving people's feelings even more offensive. People have used this slogan and, for all I know, continue to do so and denying this doesn't make it go away. In many ways publicising this helps the case for the gay rights movement, rather than the other way round. -- Axon

Cunctator, you've totally mucked up the redirects with all of these moves, and have violated the agreement worked out on the mailing list that "Slogan:" goes first. -- Zoe

With any subject there is a heirarchy and these are the articles I see as relevant by their order:

Homosexuality Gay Fag
Gay culture Gay issues and controversy
- Some anti-homosexuals object to the term "Gay", as i understand it - but its no doubt legitimate as a substitute for "homosexual"
Anti-homosexual views (Anti-homosexualism)
Religious anti-homosexual views Homophobia
Anti-homosexual hate speech (Hate speech)
Anti-homosexual hate slogans (Hate slogans)

Thats about all that I can see thats relevant... theres about 200K worth of text to fill before having to get into specifics, and even then the "AKFD" slogan is... unwarranted. - Put politely. -&#35918&#30505

Other offensive articles