Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality and Confucianism


 * 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 with cleanup. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 03:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Confucianism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research. (That doesn't mean that the points it asserts are not true, just that there is no source available to support them, which makes it entirely its author's opinions.) Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable, and part of a series on homosexuality and various religions. Sources need to be found, it sounds like someone just wrote it out of what he already knew. Redddogg (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Confucianism is not a religion, it's a philosophy. 70.51.10.188 (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because the modern day Chinese want to mix it with Marxism and that wouldn't work if you call it a religion. :-) Redddogg (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - as per Redddogg. It needs referencing, but is encyclopaedic. While Confucianism is not a religion per se, the article's editors have chosen to link it in to the series on homosexuality and religion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - agree with Redddogg and Beeswaxcandle. The article admittedly needs referencing and improvement, but it's an eminently encyclopædic article (at least in its potential). Maethordaer (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 09:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 09:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 09:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The topic seems indeed notable enough, , but the current article is first hand analysis of religious texts, which is a prime venue for original research. This article has been without reference for three years, which doesn't bode well, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt for now. Relying on published scholar analysis in this area is much better. Looking at Homosexuality_and_Christianity, you can pretty much spin it as you like. VG &#x260E; 16:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up as needed per WP:AFD - "If an article can be fixed through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AFD". -- Banj e  b oi   17:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: I actually like the topic and the content, and I am sorry to see it go. However, it is entirely unreferenced and has been so for a long time.  No one has added proper sources to the article despite long-standing requests for them.  So, as much as I think it could have been an acceptable article, WP policy is no sources, no article.  Folks who created it have had their chance to source it and have not.  Unfortunate. — James Cantor (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't delete because no sources are on an article, we delete because no sources exist that anyone is aware. Are you stating that you have looked and no sources even exist? -- Banj e  b oi   02:50, 18 October 2008 (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.