Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln (3rd nomination)


 * 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. — CharlotteWebb 01:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln
Comment: Delete per WP:V, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, and WP:REDFLAG.
 * 1) Yes, this article quotes some sources such as the NYT, but careful observation will bear that they are secondary/tertiary sources, not primary sources.  They are generally media coverage (and negative coverage at that), concerning a book.
 * 2) The only primary source is a C.A. Tripp, who is not a historian and is strongly contested within the academic community (as the article itself points out.) Thusly, more length is spent within the article disputing the thesis than verifying it.
 * 3) The sections that are not a direct reference to C.A. Tripp's book are unreferenced accounts of Lincoln's past, thus classifies as original research.
 * 4) Finally, WP:REDFLAG requires that "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources."  For this rather extraordinary claim, we have only ONE primary source, who isn't an historian.
 * Djma12 (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This nomination for deletion needs deletion. This is the THIRD or perhaps FOURTH time it has been nominated. This is a waste of everyone's time--JimWae 23:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment edit conflict: This would be the third for this particular article
 * first - Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln
 * second - Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln (2nd nomination)
 * then there is also the related Articles for deletion/Abraham Lincoln's Sexual Orientation
 * I would recommend re-initiating as or moving to Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln (3rd nomination). --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC) (revised 25 March by Ceyockey)
 * Mea cupla. I only saw that the first nomination existed. Djma12 (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It can be tough to keep track for articles that have a large 'what links here' and which have traveled to AfD several times. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 13:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a debate about the validity of the article not the content of the subject of the article. The fact that this rediculus book has created such a controversy is a reason to include it, not delete it from Wikipedia. -- Selket Talk 23:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, WP:FRINGE suggests that this should be kept not deleted. Can someone snowball this please? --Selket Talk 07:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, whether or not the allegations are true is irrelevant, we can still cover the allegations in an NPOV manner as long as there are plenty of reliable sources, which there certainly are in this case. Krimpet (talk/review) 00:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - nothing new advanced by the OP that hasn't been amply addressed in one of several previous AFDs. I see no valid reason to delete this article. Otto4711 00:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is the same argument over and over. Understandably the article upsets some people but the fact that the subject is controversial is no reason to delete it. --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 03:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Understandably? There's no shame in Lincoln possibly being gay. And how is it extraordinary is it to suggest that someone might not have been straight? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Content disputes can (and have been) discussed on the talk page. The amount of controversy and interest in the article gives overwhelming endorsement of its notability. AgneCheese/Wine 05:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If there is one principal source and the article frankly discusses its acceptance, this is honest striving for a fair POV.DGG
 * Keep per above, and also note the Log Cabin Republicans. Ab e g92 contribs 15:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Very notable. Artaxiad 21:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Can't find anything improper with the last AfD closing 2 months. Subject has been covered by 3rd party sources.  Just because something is controversial doesn't mean an article about it should be deleted.  --Oakshade 22:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Crystal button ok.png|15px]]Strong keep Article still is plagued with problems, however with effort put forth from both POVs, it would be a bummer to see this article crumbled into a ball, set a blaze and tossed into the trash can. [[Image:Crystal ksmiletris.png|20px]]--Masterpedia 03:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, again. And keep next time too. If a nybody trots out a new argument that wasn't answered thoroughly in the previous AFDs, let me know on my talk page and I'll gladly consider it. As it is, currently, there's nothing more to say. — coe l acan — 04:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for the third time. The mere presence of this continuing controversy affirms the need for an article.  Let the critics, instead of pursuing deletion, work contructively toward improving the article.  CoppBob 19:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep yet again. WP should consider a waiting period following a closed AFD before an article gets nominated again. There is an inherent bias toward deletion: if it's deleted, any recreation is speedily deletable (even though consensus could change); if kept (consensus could change) and it gets nominated over and over again until enough people aren't paying attention perhaps and don't participate in the debate and then it's deleted.  Carlossuarez46 20:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I will assume that this AfD have been started in good faith. If Lincoln had been a living person, I cannot see the sources mentioned being sufficient for it to pass WP:BLP (for instance, just because Ann Coulter called Bill Clinton gay, doesn't mean we have an article entitled Sexuality of Bill Clinton). Just because Lincoln is dead does not suddenly give a purposed serious encyclopedia a carte blanche to speculate about his sexuality. Railwayman 15:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep In reference to the Log Cabin Republicans and generally, the sexuality of Lincoln comes up in conversation. Having a page that curious people can go to figure out where the suggestion of homosexuality came from, and what (little) evidence there is, is completely consistent with the purpose of Wikipedia.  About the nomination; Wikipedia is supposed to be a encyclopedia, which IS a tertiary source.  We're supposed to use secondary sources when possible! Enuja 17:08, 27 March 2007 (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.