Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mental roots of sexual orientation


 * 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. Dennis - 2&cent; 20:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Mental roots of sexual orientation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of this article is not properly defined. What is "Mental roots of sexual orientation" meant to be exactly? It's not uninteresting that some researchers think that children hearing the pitch of a man or a woman's voice is relevant to the development of sexual orientation, but why would that one idea deserve an article unto itself, instead of being mentioned briefly in an article such as Sexual orientation? I suppose that the article could be renamed something like, "Voice in the development of sexual orientation", to better identify its subject, but I still see no reason why that subject would deserve its own article, as it would not meet WP:NOTE. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep frivolous nom, gng met + topic established all's in article text, read it + also read sexual orientation, keyword for you = auditory 40.140.124.77 (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Frivolous? Hardly. The article begins, "A theory about the development of sexual orientation and sexual arousal suggests that these behavior patterns are learned unconsciously from asexual experiences during childhood." If it were a genuinely noteworthy subject, the "theory" would at least have a name, though apparently it doesn't. How can the subject be notable if no one has even bothered to give it a name? The name "Mental roots of sexual orientation" is hopelessly over-broad, and certainly isn't appropriate to an article focusing on the response of young children to the sound of adult's voices. ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. A perusal of sources indicates coverage and a significant amount of discussion of the topic. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So you think that the topic - the proposed way in which the response of infants to the sound of male and female voices contributes to the development of sexual orientation - is notable? I find that surprising. Would you support a change in the article's name, then? The current name does not usefully indicate the article's actual topic. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, a change in the article's name would be fine. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Cirt - you say there is a "a significant amount of discussion of the topic". What is the topic? If it's "the sound of male and female voices contributes to the development of sexual orientation" then can you link to any sources other than the two works by Yehuda Salu of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Howard University, who I suspect started this article? --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;The notability of this article rests on two publications by Salu: the first is WP:PRIMARY and has been cited all of five times, and the other I'm not able to locate at all (listed ISBN is not in worldcat). The rest of the cites are perfectly respectable but don't address the subject of the article.  Not seeing how this is anything other than WP:OR.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete A fringe hypothesis only published by one author in the journal Medical Hypotheses (that's right, it's a hypothesis not a theory) and in a self-authored book. These two works provide the only basis for this article. I see no support for this hypothesis since publication in 2010. The article is a split from Sexual_orientation, a subsection of Sexual_orientation. This section needs serious reworking, if not deleting, as it features only the dubious hypothesis described here and then three paragraphs on the correlation between auditory systems and sexuality which has nothing whatever to do with the causes of sexuality.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable fringe idea that is not even wrong. Despite its wall of text and citations, it's still original research. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources in the article that actually claim to support this theory are poor: a journal created for and known for publishing fringe theories, and a self-published book by the same author. The reliable sources in the article are generally cited to support other claims such as sex difference in ear and brain structure, not sexual orientation differences. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. The RS content present in article can be briefly mentioned in Sexual_orientation, where it can be balanced by other competing theories. The one theory presented here does not warrant a stand alone article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2014 (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.