Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human sexuality spectrum


 * 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. I realize this is going to be unpopular with most of the participants here, but I'm actually going to side with Waters.Justin—in that it reflects poorly on Wikipedia to entertain these type of nominations, period. And this should have been closed sooner on these grounds (I would have, if I knew about it). Merge discussions can be taken to the talk page, where I suspect they are likely to succeed. But this nomination is nonetheless otherwise disqualified. El_C 05:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Human sexuality spectrum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is inaccurate. Almost everything here is absolutely false, and misleads confused people into believing that some of these are actual sexualites or genders. Stop misleading these children into your false state of mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hispanic rice (talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 January 2017‎ (UTC)  — Hispanic rice (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Speedy keep, no valid reason given for deletion. A case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT by a single-edit account, for an obviously notable subject. --bonadea contributions talk 09:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note This nomination was missing a template, and not listed in the daily log. I have corrected that now, please bear in mind the delay in listing when deciding when to close this. Monty  845  00:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Human sexuality. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Vexatious nomination pushing a POV, fails to raise a valid reason for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck due to multiple !votes. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * did you mean to strike your own comment? ansh 666 05:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge with human sexuality. This page is mostly a list of definition which are explored in more depth at human sexuality.   Dr Strauss   talk  12:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Sexual orientation, which is a better target. (Human sexuality does not cover the "spectrum".) I agree that the nomination lacks merit, but I don't think it's better to kick this discussion to its talk page. Also consider Heterosexual–homosexual continuum, which is similar in scope and another merge candidate. czar  21:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge, as Czar says, to Sexual orientation, which covers the same ground, in more detail, and with over a hundred citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Sexual orientation per Czar; I undid an out-of-process redirect earlier. ansh 666 05:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as an invalid nomination. If in-process merge seems appropriate, then it can be considered on the talk page where greater participation by interested editors is likely.  It appears that there may be enough differentiation that there is value in a separate article.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep due to an invalid and ideologically motivated deletion request. I don't believe Wikipedia should entertain ideologically motivated request for deletion.  Also see new references. A Content Split from sexual orientation is justified. See WP:SPLIT.  Waters.Justin (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * the fact that the nomination is invalid has no bearing on whether a discussion can be held, especially since other users have commented with valid concerns. There is no reason to close the discussion on procedural grounds. ansh 666 04:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Move to draft An article on this topic could be written,but this is a relatively poor step towards that. Human sexuality spectrum is a real thing, numerous real secondary sources exist and they just need tobe bought to bear in this article. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete the article is poor and full of mis-informationD.H.110 (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 16:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Sexual orientation. Doesn't require a separate article. RoCo (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This is basically just the Kinsey scale, which already has an article. Imalawyer (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2017 (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.