Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlfag and guydyke
but I do think there ''may'' be notable encyclopedic content for this, potentially. With this article, we have a complete mess of formatting, with "girlfag" and "guydyke" related terminology bouncing all over the place; two separate articles would be sensible, for starters. Then there's a few OR statements, although most of them aren't;  is possible. http://www.greenerypress.com/hcws.htm doesn't mention either term, but not having access to the book, I can't verify if there ''is'' any mention at all. Source 2 is entirely offline, but appears to be a mish-mash of two different things, so that raises alarm bells. http://www.queerbychoice.com/clare.html frequently mentions the term, but is clearly a primary source (the author owns "girlfag.com") so can't establish notability. Source 4 is offline, so I can't analyse it either. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2580489?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102601756721 contains a highly derrogatory alternative to girlfag, but may be reliable. http://www.poppyzbrite.com/rope.html made me run away very quickly, and appears to be unreliable, all jokes aside. http://matt-thorn.com/shoujo_manga/outofhand/index.html doesn't mention either term. http://drupagliassotti.com/2009/04/14/are-women-who-drawread-yaoi-girlfags/ definitely mentions "girlfag", but is also unreliable. So, what are we left with? One term that ''might'' scrape through notability, with further searching (I'm reluctant to do so) which is "girlfag". "guydyke" is rarely mentioned in the article, let alone any of the cited sources, so that's not useful. The current mess of an article, with its poor title, is not worth saving, even if someone was to write a proper article on "girlfag". This article is also an enormous vandalism magnet - I wonder why that is
— User:Lukeno94, 16:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:SYNTHESIS (Wikipedia:No original research)