1662:
to argue that if the trolling campaign was never actually launched, this term would have died in obscurity and have never gained any traction in the media at all. You're not really going to find many news articles that have substantial coverage and do not focus predominantly on the trolling campaign, in specific not enough to establish where this is independently notable at this point in time. I want to stress that this is "at this point". If more coverage comes about in the future then and only then should this be its own article. I'm just skeptical as to whether this will happen at any point in the near future given the dearth of coverage that currently exists since the initial media flurry. The majority of outlets have moved on to other topics. If independent notability is to be established then this will likely come about in the further future when academic/scholarly sources report on this. Even then there will still be a need to establish how this is independently notable of the trolling campaign or how the campaign has taken on independent notability. This isn't there yet.
971:- as someone who's trans, while I think you probably created this page in good faith, I don't believe the movement itself to be in good faith at all. I live in the UK, where every celebrity's pasttime is coming out as transphobic, and where good transgender healthcare flows like treacle - way too effin' slowly - and I've seen many a TERF jump on the super straight hashtag excluding people like myself from their definitions of 'male' or 'female'. Regular straight people would just say they're not looking for trans partners; 'super straight' people like to make a point of that exclusion as a political fact, not an identity one. It's not so much defined by people's 'love' of their sexuality, so much as needing to use it as a battering ram against others, which you may not have seen yourself. Unfortunately, I can't say I've personally seen anyone identify as 'super straight' in good faith at all. --
1491:
345:
where near the case. It was individuals who wanted to express their sexuality without being judged. The collateral damage was individuals who associated it with things that it simply wasn't. In fact the founder stated ""I created it because I was sick of being labeled with very negative terms for having a preference, something I can't control, and getting labeled by the community that preaches acceptance with that sort of stuff," Kyleroyce"
1289:
trans. If every LGBTQ+ Term is accepted as a real orientation then this should be as well. In fact this probably the most common orientation. Not just throughout history but even currently. To try and act like it's just anti trans identity is stupid and threatening the account of anyone who even discusses it, proves that you're biased and not actually concerned about the reality of it.
800:. Regarding your journal article, how is there a journal article on a term that was coined six years later? Just because the journal quotes someone who described themselves as "super straight" does not mean they are describing the same thing, which given the timing, they clearly aren't. That is, unless you think we need to add to the article that "super straight" actually describes
1304:
this probably the most common orientation" is an opinion, not a fact, and "To try and act like it's just anti trans identity is stupid and threatening the account of anyone who even discusses it, proves that you're biased" is some conspiracy theory peddlin' nonsense, wherein evidence against the conspiracy, in an
Olympic feat of mental acrobatics, becomes evidence in favour
703:
deliberate attempt as to not offense anyone. It is an expressed sexuality along with numerous media references. To some it is a response to the what may be considered to overbearing nature of some groups. Just like CIS became a term, as did LatinX, I do believe that enough people subscribe to their chosen gender as being superstraight.
1211:. It is not our role to immediately create an article about every neologism that happens to pop up on Twitter. When it is still in question as to whether this is a "flash in the pan" or will take off as a topic with long-term significance, we do not keep the article on a "wait and see" basis — we do the waiting and seeing
1642:
The long and short of this though is that social media posts aren't usable to establish notability. Even if the hashtag wasn't getting removed or blocked at all, the presence of more posts wouldn't make something more notable on
Knowledge. The same goes for frequency of the term's use. It may make it
683:
determining that it wasn't quite notable enough at this time and that we should wait to see if it is covered by more major news sources first. I still feel we should wait to see if it gets any more coverage, since it seems to have gone unmentioned by any media for the past week or more. If not worthy
415:
I'm asking myself what are the exact criterias to be a notable neologism. And how do you define, that this term has enduring notability. Just saying... I'm for keeping, as super straight is part of the
Zeitgeist. I would rather delete obviously biased references to Nazis and far right. Why do we need
1661:
This is why I have argued that the coverage at the /pol/ article is where the term should be covered since that what the coverage focuses on. Yes, the coverage does mention its use as a sexual orientation term but that is more of an afterthought, a preamble to the trolling campaign. I'd go as far as
1248:
thought experiment makes it pretty clear that the issues with this article and its sourcing will only get worse over time - users above have described it as "a flash in the pan with a long tail," which seems accurate. That tail appears to be receding already based on coverage of the term, and while
587:
in the news the coverage was already on the lighter side and most tended to report the exact same thing as the next. I don't see where there's enduring notability enough to justify an independent article at this point in time. If more coverage comes about then this could have its own article, but it
1164:
As per
Dimadick, it's too early to say whether this neologism is a "flash in the pan" or not. As mentioned above, Snopes and Pink News have discussed this term in detail, and it's been covered by Refinery29 and Vice (which I'd say are citeable on occasion as they generally cover pop culture and web
822:
a normal term to now as being a bad term. You will also see the evolution of the n-word, which when used by whites can be derogatory but when used by other blacks it may not seem to be that bad. So yes, if you see the article of
Superstraight was popularized more recently but it had many times in
1288:
But change to not be biased, OR redirect to the actual page for people that are attracted to only non-trans people of the opposite sex. Even if this started as a joke term, there would still have to be an actual sexual orientation where you are attracted to people of the opposite sex, that are not
1127:
I think our jobs isn't to judge people how they determine themselves. And while keeping it we need to make sure this article includes more clear information, starting with imagery. It shouldn't identify as "Schutzstaffel" after some 4chan memes since 4channers doing politically incorrect memes all
344:
and links between it and other articles can easily be created. It comes down to your perspective. Also with the article being changed in large degree it doesn't help the situation. Additionally the changes have almost made the article seem like a hate article when the original popular term is no
1638:
someone is using the hashtag. By this I mean that the user is using the hashtag in a way that violates the social media site's TOS. However it would not stop a news outlet from reporting on something if the outlet were to see the topic as being worthwhile to report on - meaning that they think it
1303:
Please try and keep AfD discussions encyclopedic; implying that "every LGBT Term" isn't a "real" orientation is a matter of opinion, not a citeable fact, nor does
Knowledge have to grant the same prominence to one article because there's a similar, ideologically opposing article as well. "In fact
1943:
It's not exactly a high quality article when "to troll leftists" is present outside of quotes. I don't consider there to be enough media attention to consider it notable, there's a clear bias in the article, it references tabloid-like sources, and
Knowledge isn't a dictionary. The piece is more
837:
Anyone who looks at the journal you linked will see that it is not an evolution of the term, but rather an entirely unrelated usage. That said, this is becoming somewhat tangential to the deletion discussion, so if you'd like to continue discussing the journal article I'll be happy to do so at
702:
The fact that Super
Straight brings out strong emotional responses shows how strong of a topic it is. It isn't meant to be hurtful. It is simply a chosen group wishing to promote self love of their sexuality. It is growing despite measures to have it banned. The article was written in a
1692:
This is a notable term that has become increasingly more commonly used by people to denote (whether as self-identification or scaldingly) those who do not want to partake in sexual activities with non-cis people. There's a multitude of sources and broad media coverage of the phenomenon.
1586:
That is not our problem, though. Even if it is the blocking of hashtags that has led to the lapse in coverage (which I doubt is actually the case), the fact remains that there has not been enduring coverage, and that is what would be needed for the article to be kept.
1549:
A "brief burst of news coverage" is exactly what we have here. Not only have news coverage and comments by the chatterati subsided, but so has interest among internet users searching for information about it. Search interest began on 4 March, peaked on 9 March, and
1916:
is good for establishing notability but it's passable to flesh the article out with. Were this just about (e.g.) TikTok then a merge might be preferable, but it's about a trend that spans several different platforms, so I don't think a merge would be right.
1108:) that has little to no likelihood to stick around. Maybe it deserves inclusion on some sort of list article on terminology somewhere, but that appears to be the best it's going to get. No real notability argument seems to exist to have an article on it.
775:
There are many RS in the article. The problem is also many have been deleted and the original NPOV article has been dramatically changed to suit an agenda. There was a controversy portion of the article that has been minimized and moved to the lead.
1473:, which is a song. I'm pretty sure we avoid having two articles with titles that differ only in capitalization, but since this is at AfD I was leaving that particular issue for after the deletion discussion is closed, since it might be rendered moot.
1725:
Just for clarity's sake, are you describing the existing sources in the page as a "multitude" and "broad media coverage", or are you saying there are a multitude of sources and broad media coverage that aren't yet being used in the article?
1639:
would result in clicks and reads. The removal, block, or ban of something is typically interesting to news outlets, so the fact that they haven't seen this as newsworthy beyond the initial flurry (and some not at all) is kind of telling.
253:
as a non-notable neologism and internet phenomenon. Coverage has already subsided, so I think it's already pretty clear this doesn't have enduring notability. We don't need an article on every TikTok trend and /pol/ trolling campaign.
760:
No one here has argued it should be deleted because it is hurtful. We have lots of articles about hurtful topics. It should be deleted because it's not notable. As for your characterization of the term, that is not how RS describe it.
1629:
This also won't impact news coverage. It may change how a news outlet would post on a social media site, but I have a strong suspicion that the removal of the hashtag has less to do with a blanket removal of the term and more the
1396:) or sometimes an adjective describing someone who is highly conventional, reserved, or socially conservative (e.g., "the superstraight girls almost never show up to our parties"; "collegeage and superstraight in a Jaycee way":
658:: Absolutely plagued with issues including the fact that text I wrote in a draft was copied here without attribution in the page history. However I do feel this deserves its own article. Plenty of coverage to work with.
1646:
Moving on to that specific question, the issue at hand is whether this needs its own article or if it's already covered well enough in another article. If we look at the coverage there are three things that stand out:
1192:
it will be more than a flash in the pan in the future. The vast majority of these things sink without a trace and this will almost certainly be one of them. Knowledge is not to play a role in helping them stay afloat.
1921:
is right that most "keep" !voters are "embarrassing" in the sense that the closing admin must discount them or give them little weight, but this is nonetheless my independent evaluation of the article's notability. —
1099:
The sourcing isn't great even when considering the flash in the pan time period. Just a couple internet-focused periodicals, all discussing how the term is just a new attempt at transphobia. Seems like a pretty clear
198:
1619:
use them in an internet search but searches operate differently from social media. Twitter or TikTok blocking or removing a search term or hashtag will not impact Google search results as that's something
1067:
also has to be overcome; it's not just a matter of satisfying 'more than two non-garbage media outlets put out something on it'. This is the exact sort of flash in the pan thing that we exclude per
796:
Which RS have been deleted from the article? The article has been dramatically changed, but it was to bring it in line with NPOV, not to suit an agenda. As for the controversy section, that was per
444:
423:
1290:
489:- I'm inclined to think the topic reaches the level of notability (e.g., the PinkNews story and the Snopes fact check alone put this close to the GNG bar), but this article would benefit from
1253:
surge back into mainstream use or discussion tomorrow or in two weeks or in three years, we can't predict the future and we definitely can't base deletion decisions on it. This article is
1128:
the time. Also don't forget, Transgender term popularized after an activist named "Leslie
Feinberg". I think it is a topic need further research, censoring it wouldn't help further data.
384:
tag was added shortly after the article was created for this reason. Knowledge articles are not meant to be reflections of your personal views on a topic, and you need to stop
326:. When you don't filter the WLH search to articlespace you end up with a lot of auto-results generated by the article being listed at AfD, by the WikiProject templates, etc.
610:
or at least merge into the draft and see if there is more coverage later. It currently seems live a short-lived
Internet neologism, and is already declining in popularity.
1643:
more likely it would get covered, but it's not a guarantee of coverage. Only coverage in RS would do that. The main question here is whether this deserves its own article.
192:
159:
1551:
1495:
1294:
583:. Right now the coverage for this term is all but a trickle and there's no evidence that this will gain enough coverage to show that it's really notable. When this
1905:
306:
106:
91:
235:
of this article were recently rejected at AfC as non-notable. Sources provided span only a few days, so provide no indication of enduring notability.--
1018:
I think Funcrunch is just pointing out that styling it in all-caps make it look like an acronym, whereas it's usually just written in normal casing.
1572:
Mathglot, I would certainly agree with the image of the trend. The issue I have seen is that many of the hashtags have been deleted or blocked.
1165:
trends reliably) and as long it's cleaned up and an eye is kept on it to make sure NPOV is kept, I don't see why this article should be deleted.
1624:
has to do - and they typically don't. I search using the hashtag myself and brought up results, so Google isn't blocking or removing the term.
1656:
Most of the coverage is about the trolling campaigns on places (predominantly /pol/) that are trying to use the term for their own devices.
929:
You can be a member of an oppressed group and still act in ways that are harmful to other oppressed people. But this is getting off-topic.
950:
Yes someone can be. I am not. My lack of understanding was not malicious. I am not perfect. As previously stated, I am not anti LGBT.
729:
1653:
Most of the coverage says the same thing, making it very likely that they just copied the basics from another outlet (a common tactic).
438:
427:
1708:
132:
127:
319:
the number of links to an article was an indicator of notability, you are wrong about the incoming links. In fact, the article is an
315:
of a flash in the pan does not mean it is not a flash in the pan. As for "there are numerous places that link to this article": even
1885:
1150:
273:
136:
1988:. GorillaWarfare, Ser!, and Uses x took the words right out of my mouth. Plus it's not too well written to begin with. This isn't
434:
1154:
1319:, in a few months time, nothing further comes out about 'super straight' as an identity, at which a point we can absorb it into
1490:
555:
232:
119:
86:
79:
17:
1443:, we might consider creating it as a type of hairstyle, but since these are all trivial mentions, it doesn't pass the bar of
1071:. All evidence so far is that the only sources that will ever exist on it are from a period of a few days in March 2021; the
619:
213:
1075:
excludes it. Plus, so far it's only gotten coverage in rather small or niche outlets. The topic is also already covered at
180:
1328:
976:
1420:
1403:
1390:
908:
I was not aware of the differences. I am acting in good faith. I am not anti LGBT. I am a member of a repressed group.
1953:
1406:
1400:
1397:
1393:
1387:
1384:
1601:
The graph plots search queries, not coverage. Blocking a hashtag does not block what people type into search engines.
1423:); but what it *never* is used for in books, is a type of gender identity. In scholarly journals, there is one use of
1417:
1002:. "Over the last two weeks, (mostly cis) people on social media have started openly identifying as "super straight."
1376:
Checking reliable sources in Google books, I find this term is used (rarely), but never with the meaning given here.
680:
526:
100:
96:
588:
looks like a good chunk of the media chose to either not report on this or just summarize what another source wrote.
1897:
1976:
1413:
1410:
887:
article. If you want other editors to believe you are acting in good faith, please use these terms appropriately.
2028:
1669:
1428:
801:
595:
510:
229:
40:
1032:
Correct. FWIW, that Mashable article links its first usage of cis to a definition that explains it is short for
363:
or it isn't, based on whether or not it has incoming links from other articles in the mainspace. At the moment,
174:
52:, with no prejudice to an improved form of the article existing in the future if this neologism gains traction.
1731:
1592:
1478:
1324:
1023:
972:
847:
809:
766:
517:
475:
452:
393:
331:
259:
1769:
1740:
Is your comment about "increasingly more commonly used" based on your own experience, or why do you say that?
1436:
880:
1811:: Striking through my previous vote and voting "delete" because the other "keep" voters are embarrassing me.
1577:
1342:
1009:
955:
913:
828:
787:
751:
725:
708:
350:
282:
2011:
1980:
1957:
1935:
1869:
1845:
1826:
1803:
1749:
1735:
1712:
1676:
1610:
1596:
1581:
1567:
1482:
1464:
1358:
1332:
1298:
1280:
1263:
1244:, largely per Crossroads. Knowledge is not a newspaper or an indiscriminate collection of information. The
1236:
1201:
1171:
1137:
1119:
1091:
1045:
1027:
1013:
980:
959:
938:
917:
896:
851:
832:
813:
791:
770:
755:
712:
694:
669:
647:
622:
602:
567:
538:
521:
504:
479:
456:
397:
374:
The article has been changed to actually reflect the sourcing, which it did not originally do—note that an
354:
335:
286:
263:
244:
170:
61:
1912:
was published four days ago so that's at least a fortnight. Several different publications. I don't think
1841:
1821:
1704:
1114:
664:
2024:
1799:
1146:
1133:
818:
The evolution of the term isn't something that I have an issue with. The same way you may see the term
36:
371:); I was simply pointing out that your WLH link didn't prove the point I think you intended for it to.
220:
1787:
1696:
1663:
1514:
1440:
1377:
1181:
589:
419:
57:
743:
It is a strong enough topic that even other articles or drafts were created to show its importance
388:
to try to mold the article to your own views (which seem to differ substantially from RS coverage).
1791:
1727:
1615:
OK, here's my input on hashtags. They are designed for use on social media first and foremost. You
1588:
1536:
1474:
1105:
1101:
1041:
1019:
934:
892:
843:
839:
805:
762:
635:
576:
513:
471:
448:
389:
378:
327:
255:
206:
123:
1003:
367:. But like I said, an article's orphan status is really not relevant to deletion discussions (see
1901:
1884:
as second choice. Sources contributing to notability that I see are, in decreasing significance:
1745:
1606:
1573:
1563:
1460:
1371:
1354:
1005:
966:
951:
924:
909:
866:
824:
783:
747:
721:
704:
643:
615:
563:
534:
346:
293:
278:
1889:
1432:
780:
2007:
1918:
1863:
1854:
1837:
1816:
1783:
1720:
1700:
1381:
1254:
1232:
1185:
1177:
1166:
1109:
1068:
659:
276:
240:
75:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2023:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
493:
vetting in the AfC process and there is no urgency for us to have an article in mainspace. —
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1949:
1928:
1893:
1795:
1448:
1444:
1142:
1129:
500:
360:
320:
186:
1276:
1195:
1085:
797:
779:. The article is notable, there is even an article from 2015 concerning super straight.
447:) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page.
368:
53:
1323:, maybe. It can always be re-created as an article if it pops back up at a later time. --
744:
1990:
1972:
1526:
Sources provided span only a few days, so provide no indication of enduring notability.
1470:
1245:
1080:
1072:
1037:
993:
945:
930:
903:
888:
579:. The coverage has pretty much subsided and the term is already fairly well covered at
467:
115:
67:
1427:
that might be taken as a gender identity, but it defines a subset of homosexuality or
1812:
1741:
1602:
1559:
1456:
1350:
1064:
733:
639:
611:
559:
530:
490:
463:
1857:
but in few years I wouldn't be surprised to see academic studies mentioning this. --
679:(more specifically, merge with existing draft) — some good discussion took place at
2003:
1859:
1518:
1228:
690:
236:
153:
1555:
1540:
1945:
1923:
1545:. ... Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability.
1320:
876:
631:
494:
311:
article? Because it looks like the latter to me. Just because we are seeing the
1272:
1258:
300:
1967:
1452:
1033:
884:
872:
551:
312:
1770:
https://news.yahoo.com/social-media-trend-people-identifying-190232045.html
999:
998:
I discovered where I saw CIS as a short usage. It was in the article by
1554:
to almost zero. This term fails notability, because there has not been "
1999:
275:. Additionally there are numerous places that link to this article.
1995:
1880:
359:
I mean, it's not really a matter of opinion. An article is either an
1271:
too soon to tell if there will be sufficient sustained notability.
386:
adding statements that do not reflect the sources you are inserting
1489:
1063:. ReaderofthePack covered it well. As for the claim it meets GNG,
819:
2019:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
883:; you can read about the history and etymology further in the
1521:'s comment right at the very top of this nomination, namely:
1994:, we aren't documenting everything that makes the rounds on
1409:) or a fictional brand of corset created by Edith Wharton: (
1469:
If it's going to be redirected it probably ought to go to
732:) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
554:. Making predictions on its endurance seems too much as a
1556:
attention over a sufficiently significant period of time
1439:
are about metallic alloys, math, or chiropractic. Per
777:
385:
364:
324:
149:
145:
141:
550:
With 16 different sources, this seems to be a notable
272:
There is numerous coverage even up to a few days ago.
205:
1079:
and could again be hatnoted from the unrelated song
804:, because that is what the author is writing about.
1650:
The coverage is from a fairly short period of time.
1451:, so we should either delete it, or redirect it to
1076:
580:
1219:reach long-term significance, then and only then
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2031:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1517:, I think not enough attention has been paid to
1349:. Their reversion rate stands currently at 93%.
1380:, this term is a descriptor for a hairstyle: (
416:to categorize everything in "good" and "bad"?
1524:
298:There is "numerous coverage" or there is one
219:
8:
1965:. Quick burn, low-usage Internet neologism.
466:. As for "obviously biased references", see
107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
1416:), or a description for attractive teeth: (
432:
417:
1944:appropriate for internet culture sites.
1449:cannot be created as a standalone article
871:CIS is not an acronym. Cis is short for
1762:
435:2001:16b8:5092:6200:a49e:75bd:c3a7:17c5
424:2001:16b8:5092:6200:a49e:75bd:c3a7:17c5
1345:was 28 March 2021, with edit summary,
1291:2603:90C8:503:BE18:282B:A964:D9BC:6F30
1860:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
365:super straight is an orphaned article
7:
1552:has dropped precipitously since then
1908:. Coverage started on March 9 and
1836:: It has a massive media coverage.
881:cis-trans distinction in chemistry
24:
48:The result was ; consensus is to
1176:This is exactly why people cite
681:Draft talk:Super straight (term)
340:I disagree the article isn't an
92:Introduction to deletion process
1543:lagging indicator of notability
1347:wikipedia is liberal propaganda
823:which it was previously used.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1083:, so nothing else is needed.
509:FYI there is also a draft at
1437:rest of the journal articles
511:Draft:Super straight (term)
430:) 15:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
1188:is not kept around because
1180:in cases like this. We are
82:(AfD)? Read these primers!
2048:
2012:13:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
1981:13:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
1958:13:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
1936:12:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
1870:06:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
1846:05:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
1827:04:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
1804:20:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
1750:01:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
1736:01:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
1713:01:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
1677:14:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
1611:00:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
1597:00:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
1582:23:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
1568:21:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
1483:19:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
1465:19:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
1359:19:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
1333:19:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
1299:06:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
1281:20:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
1264:18:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
1237:16:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
1202:19:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
1172:18:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
1138:17:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
1120:04:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
1092:04:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
1046:02:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
1028:00:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
1014:23:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
981:19:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
960:17:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
939:17:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
918:17:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
897:16:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
852:15:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
833:05:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
814:13:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
792:06:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
771:02:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
756:01:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
713:01:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
695:23:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
670:23:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
648:17:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
623:17:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
603:16:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
568:15:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
539:23:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
522:15:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
505:15:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
480:15:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
457:16:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
398:15:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
355:05:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
336:13:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
287:06:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
264:15:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
245:13:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
62:14:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
802:men who have sex with men
2021:Please do not modify it.
1496:Graph of google searches
1184:; something which fails
32:Please do not modify it.
1343:first post on Knowledge
638:to be its own article.
634:. This seems a bit too
1667:(formerly Tokyogirl79)
1535:Exactly. According to
1528:
1506:
684:of a draft, I'll take
593:(formerly Tokyogirl79)
1493:
1215:, and if and when it
1155:few or no other edits
718:Note to closing admin
80:Articles for deletion
1851:Weak delete/draftify
1794:in a few months... -
1790:. Let's see if it's
1157:outside this topic.
1077:our article on /pol/
581:/pol/#Notable_events
1325:Ineffablebookkeeper
973:Ineffablebookkeeper
840:Talk:Super straight
1786:and this is not a
1507:
1505:and similar terms.
529:about this topic.
1734:
1699:comment added by
1668:
1595:
1481:
1375:
1361:
1158:
1136:
1026:
850:
812:
769:
737:
688:instead. Thanks,
594:
520:
503:
478:
459:
455:
431:
422:comment added by
396:
334:
262:
97:Guide to deletion
87:How to contribute
2039:
1931:
1866:
1853:. Seems to fail
1824:
1819:
1772:
1767:
1730:
1724:
1715:
1673:
1666:
1591:
1557:
1546:
1503:
1498:
1477:
1369:
1337:
1311:Anyway; I'd say
1261:
1200:
1169:
1140:
1132:
1117:
1112:
1090:
1022:
997:
970:
949:
928:
907:
875:, to complement
870:
846:
808:
765:
715:
693:
667:
662:
599:
592:
516:
499:
474:
451:
392:
383:
377:
330:
310:
297:
258:
224:
223:
209:
157:
139:
77:
34:
2047:
2046:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2029:deletion review
1929:
1868:
1864:
1822:
1817:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1768:
1764:
1718:
1694:
1671:
1664:ReaderofthePack
1541:Knowledge is a
1501:
1494:
1308:the conspiracy.
1259:
1194:
1167:
1115:
1110:
1084:
991:
964:
943:
922:
901:
864:
689:
665:
660:
597:
590:ReaderofthePack
496:Charles Stewart
381:
375:
304:
291:
166:
130:
114:
111:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2045:
2043:
2034:
2033:
2015:
2014:
1991:Know Your Meme
1983:
1960:
1938:
1872:
1858:
1848:
1830:
1829:
1806:
1774:
1773:
1761:
1760:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1738:
1728:GorillaWarfare
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1654:
1651:
1644:
1640:
1626:
1625:
1599:
1589:GorillaWarfare
1547:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1502:super straight
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1475:GorillaWarfare
1471:Super Straight
1364:
1363:
1362:
1335:
1309:
1283:
1266:
1239:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1159:
1122:
1094:
1081:Super Straight
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1020:GorillaWarfare
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
844:GorillaWarfare
806:GorillaWarfare
763:GorillaWarfare
697:
651:
650:
625:
605:
577:GorillaWarfare
570:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
514:GorillaWarfare
484:
483:
482:
472:GorillaWarfare
449:GorillaWarfare
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
390:GorillaWarfare
372:
328:GorillaWarfare
267:
266:
256:GorillaWarfare
227:
226:
163:
116:Super straight
110:
109:
104:
94:
89:
72:
70:
68:Super straight
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2044:
2032:
2030:
2026:
2022:
2017:
2016:
2013:
2009:
2005:
2001:
1997:
1993:
1992:
1987:
1984:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1969:
1964:
1961:
1959:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1942:
1939:
1937:
1933:
1932:
1925:
1920:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1882:
1876:
1873:
1871:
1867:
1861:
1856:
1852:
1849:
1847:
1843:
1839:
1835:
1832:
1831:
1828:
1825:
1820:
1814:
1810:
1807:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1789:
1788:WP:NOTCRYSTAL
1785:
1782:
1779:
1778:
1771:
1766:
1763:
1759:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1722:
1717:
1716:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1691:
1688:
1687:
1678:
1675:
1674:
1665:
1660:
1655:
1652:
1649:
1648:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1628:
1627:
1623:
1618:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1574:BlackAmerican
1571:
1570:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1553:
1548:
1544:
1538:
1534:
1533:
1527:
1523:
1522:
1520:
1516:
1515:WP:Notability
1512:
1509:
1508:
1504:
1497:
1492:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1441:WP:COMMONNAME
1438:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1425:superstraight
1422:
1419:
1415:
1412:
1408:
1405:
1402:
1399:
1395:
1392:
1389:
1386:
1383:
1379:
1378:Most commonly
1373:
1372:edit conflict
1368:
1365:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1315:this article
1314:
1310:
1307:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1287:
1284:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1267:
1265:
1262:
1256:
1252:
1247:
1246:ten year test
1243:
1240:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1227:the article.
1226:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1198:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1182:WP:NOTCRYSTAL
1179:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1170:
1163:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1126:
1123:
1121:
1118:
1113:
1107:
1104:problem (and
1103:
1098:
1095:
1093:
1089:
1088:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1059:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1006:BlackAmerican
1004:
1001:
995:
990:
982:
978:
974:
968:
967:BlackAmerican
963:
962:
961:
957:
953:
952:BlackAmerican
947:
942:
941:
940:
936:
932:
926:
925:BlackAmerican
921:
920:
919:
915:
911:
910:BlackAmerican
905:
900:
899:
898:
894:
890:
886:
882:
878:
874:
868:
867:BlackAmerican
863:
853:
849:
845:
841:
836:
835:
834:
830:
826:
825:BlackAmerican
821:
817:
816:
815:
811:
807:
803:
799:
795:
794:
793:
789:
785:
784:BlackAmerican
781:
778:
774:
773:
772:
768:
764:
759:
758:
757:
753:
749:
748:BlackAmerican
745:
742:
739:
738:
735:
731:
727:
723:
722:BlackAmerican
719:
714:
710:
706:
705:BlackAmerican
701:
698:
696:
692:
687:
682:
678:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
668:
663:
657:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
626:
624:
621:
617:
613:
609:
606:
604:
601:
600:
591:
586:
582:
578:
574:
571:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
546:
540:
536:
532:
528:
525:
524:
523:
519:
515:
512:
508:
507:
506:
502:
498:
497:
492:
488:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
460:
458:
454:
450:
446:
443:
440:
436:
429:
425:
421:
414:
411:
410:
399:
395:
391:
387:
380:
373:
370:
366:
362:
358:
357:
356:
352:
348:
347:BlackAmerican
343:
339:
338:
337:
333:
329:
325:
322:
318:
314:
308:
303:
302:
295:
294:BlackAmerican
290:
289:
288:
284:
280:
279:BlackAmerican
277:
274:
271:
270:
269:
268:
265:
261:
257:
252:
249:
248:
247:
246:
242:
238:
234:
231:
222:
218:
215:
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
172:
169:
168:Find sources:
164:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
108:
105:
102:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
84:
83:
81:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2020:
2018:
1989:
1985:
1977:see my edits
1966:
1962:
1940:
1927:
1919:VersaceSpace
1913:
1909:
1878:
1874:
1850:
1838:Nott Mesjing
1833:
1818:versacespace
1808:
1792:WP:SUSTAINED
1780:
1765:
1757:
1721:LordParsifal
1701:LordParsifal
1695:— Preceding
1689:
1670:
1635:
1631:
1621:
1616:
1542:
1537:WP:SUSTAINED
1525:
1510:
1500:
1424:
1366:
1346:
1338:
1316:
1312:
1305:
1285:
1268:
1250:
1241:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1196:
1189:
1168:pinktoebeans
1161:
1124:
1106:WP:RECENTISM
1102:WP:NEOLOGISM
1096:
1086:
1060:
879:, as in the
740:
717:
699:
685:
676:
661:versacespace
655:
653:
652:
627:
607:
596:
584:
572:
556:crystal ball
547:
495:
486:
441:
418:— Preceding
412:
341:
316:
299:
250:
228:
216:
210:
202:
195:
189:
183:
177:
167:
73:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1815:I guess...
1796:Kj cheetham
1690:Strong keep
1321:Transphobia
1153:) has made
1143:Thorrul.btc
1130:Thorrul.btc
877:transgender
700:Strong Keep
632:Transphobia
527:Four drafts
193:free images
1973:chat to me
1865:reply here
1855:WP:NOTNEWS
1823:talk to me
1784:WP:TOOSOON
1758:References
1513:Regarding
1341:IP 2603's
1197:Crossroads
1190:just maybe
1186:WP:NOTNEWS
1178:WP:TOOSOON
1087:Crossroads
1069:WP:NOTNEWS
666:talk to me
379:essay-like
54:Hammersoft
2025:talk page
1894:Daily Dot
1879:merge to
1875:Weak keep
1453:Hairstyle
1445:WP:SIGCOV
1257:at best.
1249:the term
1038:Funcrunch
1034:cisgender
994:Funcrunch
946:Funcrunch
931:Funcrunch
904:Funcrunch
889:Funcrunch
885:cisgender
873:cisgender
552:neologism
313:long tail
307:RSP entry
37:talk page
2027:or in a
1954:contribs
1914:PinkNews
1902:Mashable
1742:Mathglot
1709:contribs
1697:unsigned
1603:Mathglot
1560:Mathglot
1457:Mathglot
1351:Mathglot
1339:Comment:
1255:too soon
1223:when we
1151:contribs
1000:Mashable
798:WP:CRITS
730:contribs
677:Draftify
640:X-Editor
620:Contribs
612:Twassman
560:Dimadick
531:Mathglot
487:Draftify
445:contribs
420:unsigned
369:WP:ORPHS
160:View log
101:glossary
39:or in a
2004:AdoTang
2000:Twitter
1910:Indy100
1898:Indy100
1672:(｡◕‿◕｡)
1519:Trystan
1511:Comment
1435:). The
1229:Bearcat
1073:WP:10YT
741:comment
691:EDG 543
598:(｡◕‿◕｡)
558:to me.
468:WP:NPOV
237:Trystan
230:Several
199:WP refs
187:scholar
133:protect
128:history
78:New to
1996:TikTok
1986:Delete
1963:Delete
1946:Uses x
1941:Delete
1924:Bilorv
1890:Snopes
1881:TikTok
1813:WP:NEO
1809:Delete
1781:Delete
1732:(talk)
1622:Google
1593:(talk)
1479:(talk)
1367:Delete
1269:Delete
1260:ezlev.
1242:Delete
1221:that's
1209:Delete
1134:(talk)
1111:Silver
1097:Delete
1065:WP:NOT
1061:Delete
1024:(talk)
848:(talk)
810:(talk)
767:(talk)
686:Delete
636:recent
608:Delete
573:Delete
518:(talk)
501:(talk)
491:WP:DUE
476:(talk)
464:WP:NEO
453:(talk)
394:(talk)
361:orphan
342:orphan
332:(talk)
321:orphan
260:(talk)
251:Delete
233:drafts
171:Google
137:delete
50:delete
1906:Dazed
1877:with
1313:Merge
1273:Rab V
1251:could
1225:start
1213:first
1116:seren
820:Negro
630:with
628:Merge
214:JSTOR
175:books
154:views
146:watch
142:links
16:<
2008:talk
1968:ser!
1950:talk
1930:talk
1904:and
1886:Vice
1842:talk
1834:Keep
1800:talk
1746:talk
1705:talk
1634:and
1607:talk
1578:talk
1564:talk
1499:for
1461:talk
1355:talk
1329:talk
1295:talk
1286:Keep
1277:talk
1233:talk
1217:does
1162:Keep
1147:talk
1125:Keep
1042:talk
1010:talk
977:talk
956:talk
935:talk
914:talk
893:talk
829:talk
788:talk
752:talk
726:talk
709:talk
656:Keep
644:talk
616:Talk
575:per
564:talk
548:Keep
535:talk
462:See
439:talk
428:talk
413:Keep
351:talk
301:Vice
283:talk
241:talk
207:FENS
181:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
58:talk
1998:or
1636:how
1632:who
1617:can
1558:".
1539:: "
1447:so
1431:: (
1429:MSM
782:.
734:XfD
585:was
221:TWL
158:– (
2010:)
2002:.
1979:)
1975:-
1956:)
1952:•
1934:)
1900:,
1896:,
1892:,
1888:,
1844:)
1802:)
1748:)
1711:)
1707:•
1609:)
1580:)
1566:)
1463:)
1455:.
1433:14
1421:13
1418:12
1414:11
1411:10
1357:)
1331:)
1317:if
1306:of
1297:)
1279:)
1235:)
1149:•
1141:—
1044:)
1036:.
1012:)
979:)
958:)
937:)
916:)
895:)
842:.
831:)
790:)
754:)
746:.
736:.
728:•
720::
716:—
711:)
646:)
618:|
614:|
566:)
537:)
470:.
433:—
382:}}
376:{{
353:)
323::
317:if
285:)
243:)
201:)
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
60:)
2006:(
1971:(
1948:(
1926:(
1862:|
1840:(
1798:(
1744:(
1723::
1719:@
1703:(
1605:(
1576:(
1562:(
1459:(
1407:9
1404:8
1401:7
1398:6
1394:5
1391:4
1388:3
1385:2
1382:1
1374:)
1370:(
1353:(
1327:(
1293:(
1275:(
1231:(
1145:(
1040:(
1008:(
996::
992:@
975:(
969::
965:@
954:(
948::
944:@
933:(
927::
923:@
912:(
906::
902:@
891:(
869::
865:@
827:(
786:(
750:(
724:(
707:(
654:*
642:(
562:(
533:(
442:·
437:(
426:(
349:(
309:)
305:(
296::
292:@
281:(
239:(
225:)
217:·
211:·
203:·
196:·
190:·
184:·
178:·
173:(
165:(
162:)
156:)
118:(
103:)
99:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.