Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay lisp

Gay lisp

This article should be deleted on the grounds of WP:OR and that it is offensive. - Gilliam 02:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Gilliam 04:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced original research. MER-C 04:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. Keep, possibly rename. The article has sources in the external links, which is no longer acceptable, but they are strong sources -- The Economist a scholarly journal, and an article that references scholarship. It's pretty easy to find more sources, too: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Summary: not all gay (men) have a lisp, but almost all gay men have shared language characteristics that set them apart. (This is a common social marker in linguistics; see Northern cities vowel shift, code switching.) The title is a problem. Gay speech characteristics, perhaps, would be an NPOV replacement. --Dhartung | Talk 05:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Gay speech characteristics per Dhartung. --Dennisthe2 05:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Gay stereotyping. Grutness...wha? 06:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gay stereotyping or rename to something like Gay speech characteristics, but a name that doesn't imply that it's necessarily a characteristic that all or most gay folks share (they don't, or it would be easier to tell who is gay!). Stereotypes of gay speech? Horrible, I know. delldot | talk 07:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that mergining to Gay stereotyping is the best course of action, it should not be renamed "gay speech characteristics." This is tantamount to having articles on "Jewish nose shapes" and "reasons minorities are lazy." Articles on those subjects, when presented in context of "stereotyping" or something of that nature, can be encyclopedic.--Dmz5 07:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I wouldn't advocate doing such a merge until Gay stereotyping is majorly cleaned up.--Dmz5 07:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Gay stereotyping SkierRMH,10:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per Grutness. Danny Lilithborne 12:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/no redirect Although the idea of a lisp is a stereotype associated with gay men, there appears to be some evidence of a sociolinguistic phenomenon. Just as it would be wrong to include African-American Vernacular English under African-American stereotyping, it is likewise incorrect to suggest that any perception (by gays or straights) of social markers in the speech of gay men is merely repair to a stereotype. Pop Secret 13:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, do not rename or merge. The difference is there really is such a thing as African-American Vernacular English. To suggest that there is a peculiar style of speech that goes with being gay smacks of agenda-pushing. There is no such peculiar style of speech. Dragomiloff 14:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

follow up comment: the gay stereotyping article is a mess too. Needs serious work. Dragomiloff 14:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The study cited by Dhartung, supra, suggests that there may very well be distinctive speech features in gay men. I think writing the study off as "agenda-pushing" is a bit unfair, not to mention conclusory. Pop Secret 14:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename if necessary. - Gilgamesh 14:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gay stereotyping Koweja 14:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as by Koweja Alf photoman 14:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gay stereotyping. Jeffpw 14:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename - I wouldn't merge to Gay Stereotyping as that article notes it is about "common misperceptions about homosexuals". My reading of this article is that it refers to a manner of speech which - the cited references suggest - actually exists. If agenda-pushing is a concern, then the article can be NPOV'd by adding references that suggest that it does not, or that it is not actually widespread among gay males, and that refer to it as a possible stereotype. - Eron ^Talk 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge along with Gay stereotyping to Homophobia. Lets be honest about what this is. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 16:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To address the 'sources' of this article:
  1. The aticle from the Economist says little and is from 1995
  2. The 'encyclopedia article' is non-notable and admits to having data only on white middle class American gay male identity
  3. The study from the Cambdridge journal involved a grand total of 25 male voices. In any event only the project abstract and not its conclusions are cited. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 16:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's homophobia, explain Out magazine writing about it.--Dhartung | Talk 17:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Beg pardon, the Economist article says enough, and it's clearly the main focus of the article. What's wrong with being from 1995? A reliable source can be from the 4th century BCE. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's so obvious it's rediculous. The article is sourced (albeit not not perfectly) and encyclopaedic, so it's not really a candidate for deletion. Merging to Gay stereotyping may be worthwhile, but probably isn't necessary. WilyD 16:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Information has been taken so liberally from GLBTQ encyclopedia it borders on copyright infringement, but it is evidently a real subject. SHould be kept, and it totally different from gay stereotyping. GLBTQ.com suggests it is a scientific thing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Dhartung. The best source, the Economist article, starts by saying the lisp isn't the main characteristic, it's the voice pitch. Here is another by the University of Toronto: [5], about the same thing. Those are good sources. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename This is a real phenomenom, however the word lisp could be construed as somewhat homophobic. Nlsanand 17:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]