Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bisexuality in the Arab world


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Bisexuality in the Arab world

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * I was asked this in my user talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Could we go ahead and delete this article? It has had no citations for years now, but no one has taken the initiative to delete it. Michipedian (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)"
 * Keep No, you can't go ahead and delete it. See WP:NOEFFORT. Warden (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I was about to advocate Delete, seeing the excellent and comprehensive LGBT in Islam article already exists, but Warden's WP:NOEFFORT defence is powerful and compelling. This may be a viable niche article, which could be valuable in exploration. I would throw it over to any existing LGBT project colleagues, for their opinion on viability as a first step. Maybe no one is actually aware of its existence. It may have to extensively reworked and retitled. We could have a nice Cultural experience of LGBT minorities in Islamic Nations article in the making. Irondome (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have pinged Timtrent who may bring some insight into the matter, and may give a steer on any project groups which may take it on, and of course its viability in the light of existing WP content. Cheers Irondome (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as a content fork of the fairly excellent LGBT in Islam. Carrite (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment the difference between Comment forks and POV forks is often misunderstood. Please see Content forking. Content forks are valid and the wellspring from which new articles are made. The topic expands beyond the bounds of the initial article which constrains it, and we have a content fork, a good and expected thing. POV forks are deprecated because they are, simply put, and entirely different point of view on the same topic, regurgitating old material in a different guise. Those are a bad thing because they make the encyclopaedia appear to be more unreliable than it is.
 * With regard to your statement I see a content fork here, one to be welcomed, not a POV fork, and certainly not a redundant content fork (a bad thing, those). The material is wholly different. The sole issue with it is that the lack of referencing leaves it vulnerable to a deletion discussion. Indeed, such a discussion is a wise discussion because of the lack of references. Fiddle   Faddle  07:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep It is an unreferenced article, yes, and finding references might be hard because of the Arab apparent insistence that homosexuality (and thus bisexuality) either does not exist or is punishable by death. But it is not congruent with LGBT in Islam since Islam has spread way beyond the borders of the Arab world, I appreciate the ping. I am not here simply to 'make up the numbers against deletion', and I will take some time to examine the article to see what can be brought to bear for references. The article is undeniably poor, though it has a pseudo-reference to a poet who may or may not have written about it. To me this is an article we should see the potential in, even if it has long been abandoned. WP:NOEFFORT seems to make sense here, though it may be that we need to blow it up, remove unreferencable material, and start again. I've dropped a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies to see if some editing muscle might be brought to bear. Fiddle   Faddle  07:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Timtrent Pass a Method   talk  07:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lack of a valid deletion rationale aside, there...isn't really any content here. It's a few generalized paragraphs that are redundant to material elsewhere in the encyclopedia (the history of classification of sexual orientation, LGBT rights and penalties for homosexuality in Muslim countries), and it's all unreferenced. Basically, there's only one piece of information here, the bit about situational homosexuality due to sex segregation in these cultures. That might actually have enough sources out there for its own article, but that's not what the article professes to be about, it's unsourced, and the article on situational homosexuality is small enough anyway that it doesn't need a spin-out. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I have now been able to add a reference. More are needed, of course they are, but that reference is, of itself, likely to show that the topic is notable. The article may need to be rewritten, but the topic has notability. I'm working to add more. Help woudl be received with gratitude. Fiddle   Faddle  16:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename They mention Bisexuality, then homosexuality, and even pederasty. Bisexual means you are into men and women, not just men, or little boys.  This article is about homosexuality only, not bisexuality, and should be renamed.   D r e a m Focus  18:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I dont see an issue with a rename. The article is broader than Bisexuality, though does focus somewhat on that at present. Some of the remainder is confused, primarily because it is badly written. I suggest we embrace the entire gamut of LGBTQ if the outcome is to rename it, though. The world is more complex than homosexuality or bisexuality and there is a lot of anecdotal stuff about pederasty in the Arab world that could be entered into the article after refining and referencing, if it is retained. Fiddle   Faddle  20:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Arabic issues are not necessarily the same as Islamic issues, as not all Arabs are Muslims (and vice versa).  Timtrent's arguments toward keeping the article are also persuasive.  I would prefer the article be renamed to cover all LGBTQ topics, but that's another discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, essentially agree with, above. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There is an academic paper from 1996 with the exact title of this article, which is in turn widely discussed, indicating notability of this exact topic. Agree that expansion of scope to include LGBT topics in general/merge could be discussed, but AfD is not the place to do so. -- cyclopia speak! 09:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please would you consider adding the second link, the discussion one, as a reference to the article? I'm trying to work out its title and author and failing miserably to work out how to cite it. Fiddle   Faddle  17:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Fiddle and cyclopia. See also WP:HEY.  This is a valid academic topic well covered in many secondary sources, which is quite distinct from Islamic attitudes to LGBTQ issues. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.