Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Promotion 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Promotion of homosexuality

 * – (View AfD) (View log)



Contested PROD. Poorly sourced synthesis. References do not support controversial claims. This will need a few other sets of eyes. *Article has been edited based on comments during this discussion, due to the potential for misattribution. The author of the article expresses their views in the first entry on this discussion. -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff)  06:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - Article is just started already has enough sources. "Promotion" is a common noun, and "promotion of something" cant be synthesis. Google search for exact phrase with ""marks gives as many results. The article will improve over time. (comment by creater) Mest me n^^ (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, an article about a ban in Morocco doesn't support a claim that "many nations" have problems with "promotion of homosexuality." Also, an about.com blog entry doesn't support the claim that "the media generally supports" the "promotion of homosexuality."Please see WP:RS for more information on what sources are considered acceptable. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff)  04:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are quoting wrong sentences in refs. Go through phrases quoted by me between ref tags. Mest me n^^ (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing a portion of the intro statement, not supported by the in-line citations: and . These were helpful edits. -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff)  05:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is article on Homosexual agenda, but article Homosexual propaganda (which i now redirected to current article, i can give refs if somebody demands) which refers to media/public promotion was deleted 4 times, while Homophobic propaganda article is thriving. All articles that say about negative side of homosexuality are deleted in wikipedia. Mest me n^^ (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That means the community is functioning properly. Articles should be balanced, they should not lean one way or other. The reason you seem to be experiencing difficulty in finding sources for your controversial claims, is that they fall under the category of being a neologism, as defined here: WP:NEO. If it is "just a term," as you explain below, then it still falls under the category of being a neologism, and thus failing under WP:NOT (dictionary). If you are asserting that it is a notable societal topic, it will need proper sourcing, rather than random occasions in which the phrase, "promotion of homosexuality" has been used. It would need a survey of reliable sources which discuss the phrase "promotion of homosexuality" as a topic. Until that point it is inarguably WP:OR. -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff)  07:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: Still Delete - There's just no way to write an NPOV article with this title (and even if there was, this article ain't it). And grammatical arguments aside, this is pretty much pure SYNTH at this point. And even if we set those points aside, I don't see what could get put here that isn't dealt with in a more neutral manner elsewhere. Even with the update, this article still suffers from NPOV and NOR issues. Terms like "opponents of the promotion of homosexuality..." shouldn't be tossed around liberally, as not everyone is going to think the same way. And my original point remains: the title is still not neutral, and the material here is already present in a better form elsewhere -- B figura  (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is quite notable with nations banning it, making the article NPOV is upto wikipedia editors. Mest me n^^ (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the fact that nations have banned it is dealt with in Societal attitudes toward homosexuality as well as Gay rights counter-movement. The title here simply isn't neutral. -- B figura (talk) 05:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The concept suggested in the title of the article is not even defined. What is "promotion of homosexuality", exactly? Is that some kind of gay concert tour or series of commercials? -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff)  05:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing which is banned by a nation must be a thing that is defined. Promotion is a common noun, promotion of something must be questioned only for notability. Mest me n^^ (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's called circular logic. Regardless of whether the 3 countries in question defined it, you have seemingly failed to do so, with any support from reliable sources. I would support the Redirect to Societal attitudes toward homosexuality, as suggested by ttonyb . -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff)  07:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I could not understand the circular logic. Not all wikipedia articles have definition as first sentence, see example George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies Mest me n^^ (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't envision a lead sentence for this article that would meet WP:NOR. Certainly "Promotion of homosexuality is generally carried out in media, public places" is unsupported by the sources. Similar inflammatory phrases such as Homosexual recruitment and Homophobia have Wikipedia articles that treat them first as phrases, which is a good idea for both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. But the sources used here for the same purpose are too weak. I could be convinced otherwise if better sources were found or if a different scope for the article were chosen. Melchoir (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect – to Societal attitudes toward homosexuality.  ttonyb (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Promotion is actually carried out by proponents, that may or may not be opposed by the society. Mest me n^^ (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Precision with words is important. "Society" is a vague word. How do you prove that "society" approves or disapproves of anything? I think what you might mean to say is more along the lines of "factions of society," "groups who disagree" or even just "opponents." -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff)  06:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: "Promotion of homosexuality is generally carried out in media, public places etc."  LOL.  Apparently this phrase exists, but seems best addressed in context of Societal attitudes toward homosexuality.  Despite the fact that I have seen alleged gay people in public places, they have never tried to convert me with their secret powers.  Note, there is also no article on Promotion of christianity, even though I have seen missionaries in public places, and they HAVE tried to convert me with their secret powers.  There is an article on Persecution of Christians, so the fact that Homophobia exists is no surprise. --Milowent (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Crappy article, but I can see where the topic would work as something called Legislation against "promotion of homosexuality". Can you get any more POV than the opening sentence?  ("Promotion of homosexuality is generally carried out in media, public places, etc.").  Still, the author has demonstrated that there are other people in the world who seem to share that point of view, that homosexuals are working to promote their wicked lifestyle in the liberal media and in public places where freedom of speech is tolerated.  Please note that I would feel the same way if someone had presented this with the title "Homophobic legislation" and started with the sentence "Oppression of homosexuality is generally carried out by extremist groups and religious zealots".  We see a lot of that type of article as well (this one currently being debated ).  As difficult as it may be to write in a neutral, stick-to-the-facts form, that's how some subjects have to be approached. Mandsford (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if there were a "legislation against promotion of homosexuality" article, then we might keep it. But that's not what this article is. If this article is rewritten as such, that's another issue, but I see no reason to keep a POV article with a poorly-defined topic just in the hope that a biased editor will bow to our wishes and clean up his own POV work. If people think the article can be cleaned up with some work, then userfy it until it is cleaned up; the point is that an article in this condition should not be in mainspace. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 14:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ridiculously broad title. What's next, "Promotion of heterosexuality"? "Promotion of vegetarianism"? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – You forgot the Promotion of Wikipedia.  ttonyb (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete Poorly veiled attack page. Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment as Section 28 banned "promotion of homosexuality" it would seem that there's a possibility that a reasonable article could be created -- but should that article be "Opposition to promotion of homosexuality" instead? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so as "promotion of homosexuality" is a loaded phrase.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrase is widely used 520k google hits, and I am open to any other phrase you suggest. And the content doesn't fall under LGBT rights opposition. Similarly soliciting in public places is banned in many countries though prostitution is not. Not just UK section 28(which states - shall not intentionally "promote homosexuality" ), which lasted for 10 years though hardly implemented, now in 2009 promotion got banned in Lithuania, this law emphasizes the promotion towards children. Mest me n^^ (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One section in Societal attitudes toward homosexuality listing current and proposed state or country bans (all 3 of them) would be more than sufficient, while avoiding any charges of bias. At a future time when the expression has been defined better, or there are more sources to support the concept, it could break away from the main article. -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff)  06:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait for more inputs. Article is definitely not offensive, it is only counter view. Mest me n^^ (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The question isn't whether or not the article is offensive, but whether it's neutral. (Well, at least one of the questions; more issues have been listed by others). And simply put, it isn't. The underlying topic can be covered in a NPOV manner, and in fact is covered already in several other articles. There's no need for a redundant non-neutral article on a loaded phrase. -- B figura  (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, although I hesitate to question the logic of the esteemed Sarek of Vulcan... if the article has not been distinguished as anything other than a Neologism, it would not seem logical to create an article with the title "Opposition to promotion of homosexuality," as that would confer notability on the opposition to something we have said has not been discussed enough to be verified. Live long, and prosper. -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff)  06:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Move to author's sandbox, speedily Seriously, whoever came up with this needs to do his/her homework. This has no place in mainspace. It might be a good idea to define exactly what this article is supposed to be about. What, on earth, praytell, enlighten me, is "Promotion of homosexuality"? As long as this thing has no definition, no intro, no meaning, and no context it needs to be removed from the public's view. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The list of seealsos included says it all, as far as the creator's POV is concerned: "homosexual agenda"? This article obviously was created solely to push a POV. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 12:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Although a crappy article at present, there is no good reason to delete. If we deleted all the crappy articles on the project, it would be a poorer place. Reccomend that it be improved and better sourced.--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Homosexual recruitment. Yes, I know WP:LICENSE, but none of this material should be merged anywhere, and that article is the best I could find as a target for the phrase. The legal matters are already treated at LGBT rights by country or territory, and Societal attitudes toward homosexuality covers attitudes of the populace at large. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean about WP:LICENSE? Olaf Davis (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not matter for my argument, but performing a merge and delete would break the chain of attribution and be a violation of that legal stuff under the edit window. Any such argument would be rightfully ignored by the closing administrator. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see what you mean. I was originally confused because I thought you were saying that WP:LICENSE advised against 'delete and redirect' even without the merge part, but obviously you weren't. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have expanded to include: Gay pride marches are considered as promotion of homosexuality by the opposers with a slogan of "stop the promotion of homosexuality" which is as recent as July 2009. Mest me n^^ (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Expanding to include how homosexuality is promoted in schools, or alleged as such. I need more time to expand the article. Mest me n^^ (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think someone is misunderstanding the word "promotion". Your edits turn this thing more and more into a blatant attack-page with a vey obvious POV-pushing misnomer. No-one is "promoting" homosexuality anywhere in the world. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Including schools may look like attack, but definitely i dont intend to. But those are notable things that not to be missed in wikipedia, or feel free to edit the article to remove offensives. See Promotion (marketing) and Promotion (rank), all ref's are referring to former. Mest me n^^ (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To aid the author, and to keep that original intro sentence from appearing on any Google searches, I have removed the most obvious POV pushing verbage in favor of something more objective, while the notability of the article is further considered. At least now it's defined, if vaguely. And gee, wouldn't this be a great section in Societal attitudes toward homosexuality... -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff)  07:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am open to merging, or even renaming to "Oppostion to promotion of homosexuality" as suggested above, consensus is the best choice. Article is indeed notable, i still think the article qualifies to be standalone article. As for definition, I will try to improve by tomorrow. Mest me n^^ (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see my reply to Sarek of Vulcan above regarding this proposed title. -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff)  06:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Good job on the rewrite. As with many issues (gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, etc.), it can be difficult to write dispassionately about a subject, but it has to be done in Wikipedialand. Mandsford (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - the original was a WP:NPOV mess, but the changes since could make it into a real stub. A redirect or merge may be more appropriate.  If kept, it would have to be semi-protected to avoid vandalism or trolling. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per excellent subtle rewrite by OliverTwisted, which created an NPOV version of the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The mitigated language might help NPOV but the article still fails NOR. Not all opponents of gay rights think the same! The first sentence speaks of "opponents of gay rights", but it is extrapolating from the words of the Lithuanian parliament and the American College of Pediatricians. The second sentence says that "opposing groups" use a certain slogan, which is taken from a single news story that refers to "a small, peaceful group of National Front protesters". In order to make such broad claims, the article would need reliable secondary sources that make the same broad claims. Melchoir (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Update - Nothing has fundamentally changed, except the ability of the media to quote Wikipedia on the following sentence: "Promotion of homosexuality is generally carried out in media, public places, schools, etc. This is opposed by many nations." Despite the fact that I qualified the statement, and attempted a rudimentary definition based on the author's arguments, none of these sources could be said to attribute credence to the concept of "promotion of homosexuality," just by using a particular turn of phrase. Realistically, this is nothing more than a poorly sourced neologism, or perhaps protologism. For a refresher, this is what WP:NEO reminds us:"...To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. ...Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a 'true' term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). To paraphrase Wikipedia:No original research: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."
 * As for NEO, the current phrase is not a "term" as such. It does not "imply" anything, but the literal meaning. Just like phrase Societal attitudes toward homosexuality, which does not define in lead, means literal meaning and nothing more. Mest me n^^ (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Inconsistent analogy. Societal attitudes towards homosexuality is covered extensively in reliable sources, not only by co-incidental wording, but also by literal attribution: 1) 2). Also, the "I found this on that article" argument doesn't normally hold water on the AfD boards, please see: WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff)  06:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What the author/creator does not seem to understand is that simply because a certain phrase (which, in addition is completely POV) has been used or cited somewhere does not warrant an article on wikipedia. It is still undefined, incomprehensible, simply "thrown at the audience," and with hardly any context. I haven't seen any of the promised improvements other than some desperate attempts to "hunt down" the phrase in various dubious sources. This does not constitute a suitable definition. I was initially under the impression that the article might be salvage-able in some way, but having patiently observed this AfD over the past days, I now give my voice for a Strong Delete. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is mostly off-topic.  There is negligible detail about the promotion of homosexuality, it is more or less assumed.  What there is consists mostly about countries' opposition to the promotion of homosexuality.  If there was merit in any of that, it would be citing verifiable and accurate instances of promotion that lead to the laws preventing its promotion.  In that it fails to do so (apart from scouring dubious websites for 'news') the whole article represents WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH.  Either delete or merge with either the LGBT rights opposition or Homosexual agenda or anti-LGBT bias. Mish (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2009 (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.