The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as unverifiable biased original research, and indiscriminate. From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics...". Also "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought: Critical reviews...Opinions on current affairs...". If these artists are notable, they should have their own articles. However, loosely associating them in this fashion is original research and the present article is nothing more than one contributor's review of Singapore gay art. -- Krash ( Talk) 15:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as unverifiable biased original research, and indiscriminate. From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics...". Also "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought: Critical reviews...Opinions on current affairs...". If these artists are notable, they should have their own articles. However, loosely associating them in this fashion is original research and the present article is nothing more than one contributor's review of Singapore gay art. -- Krash ( Talk) 15:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply