Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hormones and Brain Differentiation


 * 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. Seems consensus is to keep, No point in letting this drag on. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 22:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hormones and Brain Differentiation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Clearly non-notable work by non-notable author. WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE also a concern. Prod contested by article author. AusLondonder (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. This nomination seems to be motivated by WP:IDONTLIKEIT concerns: the nominator simply doesn't like the book in question. He left a message on my talk page describing it as a "poor" work. The nominator is entitled to his personal view of the book, but it isn't a relevant reason for deleting the article. The nominator provides no evidence that the work is "fringe". Günter Dörner happens to be a notorious figure because of his views on homosexuality; the claim that he is not notable is uninformed and suggests lack of familiarity with this topic. As for the book's individual notability, I'm sure more sources can be found. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's poor because of its very almost unknown existence and is a poor quality work. User:FreeKnowledgeCreator has devoted a significant amount of time to articles and categories related to the anti-homosexuality cause. This nomination has nothing to do with my views, which I have not expressed. Mr Dorner does not have an article AusLondonder (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Unknown existence? Unknown to whom? Those familiar with scientific literature on homosexuality would be well familiar with this book. Calling it a "poor quality work" is opinion, and just proves my point that you want the article deleted essentially because you don't like it. You're obviously confused in assuming that Dorner isn't notable simply because he doesn't have an article; there are plenty of topics that would be notable that simply have not had articles created about them yet. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is pointless. I'm arguing it fails the above policies. It is not scientific literature. AusLondonder (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you know that it isn't "scientific literature"? What would be your qualifications for deeming it non-scientific? This is about the clearest case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT one could hope to find. For what it's worth, I've just gone through the books on my shelves and found several (Louis A. Berman's The Puzzle: Exploring the Evolutionary Puzzle of Male Homosexuality, Edward Stein's The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation, Vernon A. Rosario's Science and Homosexualities, William Paul et al's Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, and Simon LeVay's The Sexual Brain and Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation) that discuss Dörner's work without specifically citing Hormones and Brain Differentation, and several others (John Money's Gay, Straight, and In-between: The Sexology of Erotic Orientation, John C. Gonsiorek et al's Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, Simon LeVay's Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality, Micheal Ruse's Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry, Timothy F. Murphy's Gay Science: The Ethics of Sexual Orientation Research, and Jim McKnight's Straight Science: Homosexuality, Evolution and Adaptation) that do cite it. The last two of these sources I have added to the article; I will try to add others. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. It does meet WP:NBOOK, since it has "been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." Other concerns seem trumped-up. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep books passes GNG, nominator has a clear agenda here. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would ask you to strike that comment User:Mellowed Fillmore and review WP:AGF and WP:NPA. How dare you come to a discussion and simply start abusing another editor. When I nominated the book, it did not meet WP:GNG and it likely still does notAusLondonder (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. You have already exhausted AGF and my comment is not an NPA. Who do you think you are to say 'How dare you...' to another editor? Furthermore, I am beginning to consider taking you to ANI. It is pretty clear you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because a book is mentioned in another book does not make it notable by the way. AusLondonder (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you had better explain what you would accept as evidence of notability. Five criteria are listed at WP:BKCRIT, and I believe the article meets the first. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Reluctant Keep The nominator is correct that this book has become WP:FRINGE and it certainly fits WP:IDONTLIKEIT for me. But, unfortunately, it was mainstream when it was originally published. As a historical work, it passes WP:BKCRIT criteria #1.RevelationDirect (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per the rest. Pax 19:09, 7 May 2015 (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.