Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pattern of Sexual Politics

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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern of Sexual Politics

Procedural nom. Has been tagged for a few months with problem issues. Was prodded but prod removed. I don't have a position on this one way or the other but let's see what others in the community think about it. Cirt (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not much to say here. The article references a published paper, so there's no genuine question of verifiability. It's just a stub at this time, so it needs some more work, not deletion. Spotfixer (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article gives no context, has no links, its author is not well known and the Journal it was published in appears to be rather obscure as well. This article has been tagged for citation and notability for the last 9 months and has been an orphan for at least the last 9 months. - Schrandit (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The journal has an article, so it's notable.
That article points to this article, so it's not an orphan.
There is an unfortunate pattern of partisan deletionism by Schrandit, and this is a small part of it. Check the logs. Spotfixer (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I nominated this pathetic unsourced one-liner about an otherwise unknown article by an unknown author in an unremarkable journal as part of my evil plan. Or maybe it is just a bad article. Either one....you never know.... - Schrandit (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few random edits on African kings aren't going to hide the overall pattern. People aren't as stupid as you might like them to be. Spotfixer (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Single academic papers do not usually warrant wp articles unles there is extremely strong proof of importance. DGG (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article says the paper is "controversial". How is it controversial? Was there media coverage of this controversy? Did is spawn a number of follow up papers? Another question, is there independent coverage of this paper? Did newspapers, other journals, etc publish write ups or articles about this paper? If these things could be established and/or expanded, then the article clearly can stay. However, if notability cannot be established outside of the journal itself, and if the paper isn't actually "controversial" as claimed, I see no reason to keep. If there is something I am missing, perhaps Spotfixer could explain in terms of wikipedia guidelines (like WP:N) how this article meets our inclusion policy. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's hard to judge notability based on a stub. The controversy is that it compares homosexuality and pedophilia, in terms of their path towards social acceptance. As an indication that others have found it notable, take a look at http://fathersforlife.org/dale/bauserma.html, http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Harris-Mirkin, http://www.narth.com/docs/whatapa.html and http://chezjacq.com/hm-mirkin.htm. In fact, just google the title and you'll see that it's noted all over the place, and always controversially. Spotfixer (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the paper or the controversy about it was covered in the media (and someone adds that to the article) --Alynna (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because a single journal article isn't notable without sources to suggest that it has caused considerable controversy or had a major impact. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2008 (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.