Deletion of Straight pride (3rd nomination)

Comment: This article attempts to  a wide range of items and treat them as if they are part of the same thing because they have similar names, as if we would unite the Boston Tea Party, the Tea Party Express, and Mrs. Tyndale-Clyde's Tea into a single item. While the USA Today source that does unify some events, they are unifying specifically and solely US campus "straight pride rallies"; the (horribly edited) Massachusetts document mentions an example of a "Straight-Pride Rally" in their examples, but again just a campus rally event. There is an argument to be made that college "straight pride rallies" could be covered in a single article, but it seems to me that, particularly with the USA Today article, that usage of "Straight pride" could be covered within "Gay Pride" (and I have no objection to an appropriate redirect there. But this article is also currently covering (and seems dependent on covering
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: or '''(very) selective merge to LGBT rights opposition'''. Sources indicate that it is inseparable from opposition to LGBT rights and to gay pride. However, the article is mostly a list of unrelated incidents which would fail / if they were separate articles and don't fail it any less because they're together in one article; non-|newsy discussion of the topic is trivial
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Content fork of LGBT rights opposition and  list of unrelated events. The concept is synonymous with LGBT rights opposition, and the term exists and is notable solely as a reaction to Gay Pride. What very little there is of use in this article belongs in either of those articles, most logically the former. Even then, it deserves no more than a very brief mention, at best, as the slogan has not received substantial attention in reliable independent sources. None of the sources provided even suggest that "Straight Pride" exists as a concept, movement or phenomenon in either the political, social, religious or philosophical sense except as a slogan used by sporadic unrelated isolated anti-LGBT protests. The slogan itself is not notable and trivial outside of this context, as it has never been discussed substantially in reliable independent sources. As it exists now, the article is an indiscrimate catalogue or list of disjointed, minor and sporadic protests (or rather, mostly proposed-but-never-executed protests) against Gay Pride events of little noteworthiness or relevance that have been culled from Google searches. None of the sources provide make any connection between the individual events and each other, or between the events and a larger cause except LGBT rights opposition in general. Attempting to combine them into what appears to be a coherent movement with an overarching philosophy is not supported by reliable independent sources, and amounts to OR and SYNTH. Selection of the items on the list was carried out by WP editors with no guidance from reliable sources, solely on the basis of whether the protest used the slogan "straight pride" or anything similar that the editors consider synonomous. The composition of the list therefore also is exclusively OR and Synth. I cannot envision the article being expanded using reliable independent sources in a way that does not grossly violate ,, ,  and . Google hits are exclusively trivial, tangential or not noteworthy, at best transient coverage of minor anti-LGBT protests. Despite repeated requests, merge opponents failed to produce any sources discussing "Straight Pride" in a larger sense independent of LGBT rights opposition, and my own search turned up none. Arguments against the merge were exclusively variations of , ,  and , which are irrelevant, as the topic already has a stand-alone article, namely LGBT rights opposition. Material on the high school cases metioned are not noteworthy in terms of LGBT rights opposition, but might be noteworthy in terms of free speech. These incidents might be merged to School speech (First Amendment
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:OR||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:NOTDIR||WP:STANDALONE||WP:COATRACK||WP:GHITS||WP:INTERESTING||WP:VALINFO||WP:ITSNOTABLE)

Comment: To me, the two most significant arguments against a keep seem to be  and the pragmatics of merging. With respect to the first, I don't feel the article is synthetic/OR, for me it falls underneath the "of course" threshold if sources only presented single incidents.  Moreover, that isn't the case, there are a few broader linkages evidenced in sources as well, e.g., the Mass. Gov's office ref., the USA Today ref. With respect to the second question, whether it's pragmatically better for the reader to arrange the information one way or another, I believe that a separate article (this one) with summaries and links at Gay Rights and/or LGBT rights opposition is perhaps the best way to present coverage of each topic and not unnecessarily duplicative. (See also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FStraight_pride_%283rd_nomination%29&diff=486302112&oldid=486300433 this diff for clearer statements of which two refs I was acknowledging
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Some respondents here have hinted or stated that this article has been difficult to keep neutral in the past.  However, after reading it from start to finish just now, it seems reasonably neutral now.  I agree with those who think this article covers a real notable topic.  I think it would be a mistake to try to shoehorn this material into another article, or other articles.  No, I don't see this as a ''"real"'' movement.  I don't see any sign that anyone here, or anyone in the real world, seriously thinks it is a real movement.  Rather, it seems more like real world individuals trying to do the real world equivalent of .  So it is a kind of hoax.  But  says we shouldn't have articles ''that are hoaxes''.  It doesn't say we shouldn't have ''that are about hoaxes'' -- certainly not when there are sufficient  that cover those hoaxes.  As to the suggestions that this article be merged.  First, since this is a real topic, one individuals might want to put on their watchlist, merging to any one of the merge targets suggested here erodes the value of watchlists.  All those possible merge targets are related.  But I might be interested in being advised throught my watchlist of changes to Straight Pride, and not interested in being advised of changes to our coverage of LGBT rights opposition, or Gay Pride, or LGBT rights, or School speech (First Amendment), or homophobia, or Traditional marriage movement.  Second, it has always struck me, in any discussion where several people suggest merging the article, but they can't agree on which potential target article is the logical article to merge to, that merging to any of them is a bad idea.  When the closing administrator picks one of the target articles they have to be doing a disservice to all the other possible merge targets.  In these cases it is far better for each of the possible merge target to have a sentence or a brief paragraph of context, followed by a {{tl|see also}} or {{tl|main article}} that links to Straight Pride, and to keep the main details of our coverage of this topic right where it is now.  Please don't forget |the wikipedia is not paper.  It is easier for our readers, at those other articles, to click on the link to Straight Pride if they want to read about Straight Pride, and to not click on the link if they want to ignore this topic than it is to puff up that related article with multiple topics.  I know some contributors would be perfectly happy having all the other places that currently link to Straight Pride instead redirect to a subsection heading like LGBT rights opposition#Straight Pride.  But, in doing so, they are overlooking series technical issues.  The bidirectional wikilinks we use here are far superior to the unidirectional links used on the world-wide-web -- but only when used properly
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:HOAX||WP:RS||WP:NOTPAPER)