Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality and Voodoo

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. --Core desat 04:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality and Voodoo

Unsourced and has been so for 2 years. Nothing of value in this article cannot be covered in Homosexuality and Christianity. The only source given is a personal website on AOL. No assertion that this is a notable issue other than what is already found in Homosexuality and Christianity. So, delete per WP:V and to lesser extend WP:N. MartinDK 13:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC). Nom withdrawn. Trolling wins. Bye MartinDK 09:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure original research, no citations or sources. Please, no jokes about where to stick the pin in the voodoo doll. Mandsford 14:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete OR nonsense. VanTucky ^(talk) 15:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two years! Unverifiable. Looks to be nonsense. Pursey 16:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. Zouavman Le Zouave 20:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Improve. Someone can EASILY improve this article with sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CheckeredFlag200 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research. Unverfied. No assertion of notability through reliable sources. On top of all that, its probably nonsense--Cailil ^talk 23:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of recent changes I'm sriking my comment supporting deletion. I'm still not sure of the subject's notability but for now I am neutral as regards its deletion. Considering that the sources and notability are thin on the ground, this subject might be better served if the page was merged to ~~Homosexuality~~ Religion and homosexuality--Cailil ^talk 17:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we have to merge it (I have asked to keep it below) might I suggest we merge with Religion and homosexuality instead? Fosnez 00:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense - I've changed my position above--Cailil ^talk 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Truckloads of OR and fails WP:V.--JForget 01:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Total crap, spam, ...just delete! It is hard to believe that such article even exist on Wikipedia. RS1900 05:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article sucks, but that's not the reason to delete it. Fix it. lose the OR, read the book referenced and include something interesting if it's there. If it's not, then the stub can be deleted later. --Rocksanddirt 21:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Rocksanddirt. That is EXACTLY what I was thinking.71.92.70.77 21:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's impossible to improve an OR subject with no significant coverage from reliable, published sources. This topic simply isn't notable. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added some reliable sources to the article. I think more can be done for it, too. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The books are not about this subject, they just deal with Voodoo which is already well-covered on Wikipedia. MartinDK 06:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Nonetheless, the pages (and sometimes chapters) cited deal with this specific subject. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added some more sources, it needs work but should be kept. Fosnez 08:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - merging into another religions article hardly seems appropriate, the article simply needs improving per WP:AFD "If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Benjiboi 23:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a load of bollocks! --angelus dolorum - bdsm writer and poet 03:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.