Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Male homosexuality and the negative oedipus complex

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. - Mailer Diablo 03:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Male homosexuality and the negative oedipus complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Original Research, wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. Wingsandsword 12:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- WjBscribe 13:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely agree, looks like original research to me as well. References appears to be other peoples interpretations of the words of the supposed founder of the theory. The article should be referenced to the source not to others referencing the source as it get's terribly confusing to follow up on. Or am I completely out in the blue here? Sweboi 13:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and Sweboi. This article is un-encyclopedic from the first sentence. It treats Freudian theory like established fact. — scribblingwoman 14:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looks like original research Hut 8.5 14:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Not only is it WP:OR, this looks like a midterm essay or something. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not even very good original research. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not written in the proper tone, certainly all original research. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 18:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very obvious that this is a personal essay, and that it treats Freud's theories like fact. As User:Arkyan said, it's not even very good original research. Therefore, it has no reason to stay here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An original essay, not an encyclopedia article. Maxamegalon2000 05:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR. Elrith 04:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- Mailer Diablo 03:46, 26 May 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.