Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positive Alternatives to 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 keep. Shimeru (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. moɳo 19:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct, it isn't notable. Merge and redirect to Ex-gay, which is.—S Marshall T/C 19:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It appears to meet notability requirements [1] [2] [3] separate from the ex-gay topic itself. Mandsford 20:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• it is notable because it is a worldwide organisation. --Diskriminierung (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—Appears notable. I'm not sure about the neutrality of the word "therapies" in this context though, as the definition implies treatment of a health problem or disability.—RJH (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:N: received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I cited a few of this sources in the article. --Diskriminierung (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It appears to meet notability requirements. 80.187.111.78 (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC) — 80.187.111.78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. 80.187.111.78 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Striking through duplicate !vote without further comment --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't believe they're anywhere near right, but they seem to be a substantial organization.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2010 (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.