Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Corvino's defense of homosexuality


 * 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 delete. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 09:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

John Corvino's defense of homosexuality
Err... how to describe. Doesn't seem encyclopedic Computerjoe 's talk 18:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have tagged Same-sex relationships: a justification to point to this AfD as its content is identical and was created by the same user. ~Matticus TC 23:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Well said. JianLi 18:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Summary of journal article, doesn't show that article had any impact or was noted. JChap (talk • contribs) 18:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like a cut-and-paste of someone's term paper. ...  disco spinster   talk  21:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain. The article clearly cites the source as being a scholarly article (not "someone's term paper") by a philosophy professor; it is published in an anthology, as indicated in the article. Homophobic hatred is not a reason to delete any article. Has anyone heard of freedom of speech? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.213.146 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. I mean the article itself, not the source, is a copy of someone's term paper. ...  disco spinster   talk  23:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is not free speech. This is about the merits of the article as it pertains to the Five pillars. -- Scientizzle 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, "Homophobic hatred is not a reason to delete any article" is treading close to a personal attack; equating a delete vote here to homophobia is boorish. -- Scientizzle 18:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Retain. People do get squeamish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpscholar (talk • contribs)
 * Delete both violates WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Perhaps some of the content would be useful in another article as sourced arguments, but the CliffsNotes version of a pro- or anti-anything article need not have its own article (unless, perhaps, it has established notability--something this one lacks). -- Scientizzle 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. We can't publish editorials like this or we open the door to a wave of opinion articles. Deet 04:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all deletes above. -- Kinu t /c  20:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It's an essay, not an article, despite the anon's claims to the contrary. Danny Lilithborne 20:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both, they both seem to be the exact same thing. Cliff Notes of a non-notable article per Scientizzle. -- NORTH talk 23:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep --Vergardio 01:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? Computerjoe 's talk 06:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete both per nom and Articles for deletion/John Corvino on Homosexuality. -- Steel 21:02, 26 July 2006 (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.