Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexual eugenics


 * 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   speedy delete (G5) by Wifione (and 90 min later again by  Jayron32). Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Homosexual eugenics

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There seems to be something very wrong with this article. The title is suspicious in itself. "Homosexual eugenics" is a phrase with a mere 173 Google hits and none in Google Scholar or Google News. It does get 3 hits in Google Books, all to the same book, which appears to be a crank work called "The Actual Naming of John F. Kennedy's Assassins: The Vatican Ciphers". I don't see any of that corroborating the claim this "is a field of study", at least not under this name.

The link to eugenics is reasonable for the pre-WWII stuff but quite tenuous thereafter. It is not demonstrated that this stuff is related to eugenics at all or that the article as a whole covers a single, coherent topic.

There is also a fair bit of obvious POV writing in here. What the hell is "homosexual supremacism" and why is one quite minor medical news story given the grand heading "Medical advancements"? Why is the National Institutes of Health logo here? What is it illustrating? Isn't it just providing a spurious air of legitimacy to a rather dodgy section?

This article seems to be an unencyclopaedic mish-mash of stuff (which is to say WP:SYN), with a minimally notable neologism for a title, some of which may belong in other articles (e.g. eugenics) and some of which does not belong here at all. DanielRigal (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as a POV essay. When the first line you encounter in the body is: Because homosexuality rarely existed during the height of the eugenics movement of the early 20th-century, very little reference was made explicitly to this branch of the science. you know it's time to break out the hip-boots. This is a pretty much unabashed anti-gay advocacy piece best suited for Conservapedia. Carrite (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Appears to have been created by a block-evading user to judge by checkuser results, though I do not know the exact chronology of the matter. May be eligible for CSD G5 as a result. - Vianello (Talk) 01:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - As the one who brought the whole sordid sockpuppeting matter to light, my reasoning should be obvious, but otherwise, as per above. KaySL talk 02:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Response. Absolutely. I didn't mean to imply I was the one who did, and I apologize if it came across as if I were trying to claim credit or somesuch. - Vianello (Talk) 01:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply. Oh, no no no! That wasn't my intent, I was only referring to you for your reasoning, I certainly didn't mean to imply you were claiming any credit :). Edited accordingly. KaySL talk 02:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedily deleted I have deleted the page speedily. Can the closing admin please review the deletion and close this discussion asap if all is in order? Regards.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  03:33, 21 September 2010 (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.