Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forced homosexuality

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. Krimpet (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forced homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

No sources, pure OR, term is non-notable

Comment- lack of references makes it a difficult call at the momement. Thunderwing 13:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep- a quick google search indicates some source basis for the idea of "forced homosexuality"- however, the reliability of some of the sources is questionable. Thunderwing 13:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (as nom). Thunderwing, rather than making a quick Google search, would you be willing to engage in a slightly longer one? If you click on the (reputable) links that use this phrase, it does not mean what this article says it means. And isn't notable under any definition; a handful of ghits does not confer notability. IronDuke 13:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pure OR. As with IronDuke, I can't find any source using the phrase in this context — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears to be 100% unsourced OR. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect or keep. Need for cleanup is not a reason to delete, but if there's nothing here but OR... it should be redirected (to homosexuality or rape?) until improvements actually happen. It still has a lot of incoming links and seems like a real concept. --W.marsh 16:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one has suggested on this page that the article needs to be cleaned up. And I don't know what you mean about "incoming links". This article has no sources whatever. Merging an unsupported agglomeration of unsupported facts into good article is not a solution. IronDuke 16:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming links means what appears on "what links here". Links from other articles. I also didn't mention anything about merging. --W.marsh 16:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I assumed you meant merge, as a redirect would simply delete the article in question. As for it having a number of articles linked to it, that's because someone put it in the BDSM template, which is on a lot of articles. I haven't looked at them all, but I have seen no articles which actually use this term (and still no sources for it, which is the main thing). IronDuke 17:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Mark as needing citations and not meeting quality standards; if no citations are given with in a few months, then maybe delete. --Remi 20:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge to Femdom which it claims to be an aspect of. Or the Forced Feminization section of Feminization.Chunky Rice 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an icky article, but needing cleanup is no reason to delete. I wish some of these issues would be taken up more vigorously on article talk pages before attempting an AfD. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would read the above before posting. Needing cleanup is not the reason this article was put up for AfD. It's because there are absolutely no reliable sources that support the existence and/or notability of this term. IronDuke 20:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless we can find references. Unfortunately, not everything in sexual subcultures has yet been documented in good sources. This doesn't mean it's made up - in fact, I'm pretty sure this article is accurate, by and large - but if the only sources are personal experience and/or discussion forums, email lists, blogs etc. then it's not ready for being in an encyclopedia. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:59, 29 April 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.