Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln (4th 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 no consensus. This never should have been on AfD because the proposal wasn't to delete, it was to merge or redirect. That conversation should have taken place on the article's talk page, in a much lighter-weight process than AfD. Be that as it may, opinion here is all over the map; there's no consensus to do anything in particular. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Merge or redirect this article to Abraham Lincoln.

We can't have articles as Abraham Lincoln's childhood, Abraham Lincoln's love Life, Enemies of Abraham Lincoln, Friends of Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln's descendants, Abraham Lincoln's hobby. The  Aven gers  08:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)  Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT. 04:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I was completely unaware that this page has been AFDeed so many times before. The   Aven gers  08:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)  Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT.  04:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The page was created by a disruptive editor. The   Aven gers  09:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)  Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT.  04:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. We actually have many articles about historical figures' childhoods, love-lives, families, and, yes, even their sexuality. Having separate articles for multiple sections of a notable figure's life allows to provide a more detailed analysis, without having to clog up the main article. I would suggest withdrawing the nomination, as the article's topic has been covered by a range of sources and thus clearly meets the WP:GNG.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  09:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is actually full of redirects other than Jesus and Shakespeare. The   Aven gers  10:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)  Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT.  04:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Hitler. The point is that articles like this one already exist and should continue to exist.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  17:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article needs lots of work, but the subject has certainly been debated and discussed frequently enough and in enough depth to warrant a separate article. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete -- While this is based (apparently) on an academic source, it strikes me that the academic in question has been guilty of the kind of original research that WP deplores. We have a long exploration of the historiography of the subject based on very little substantive evidence, mostly on speculations undertaken long after the event, probably by people with an agenda that they wanted to push.  If this is something that is seriously discussed, it might warrant a couple of sentences in the main bio-article, but such speculation is essentially non-encyclopaedic.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The original research that Wikipedia deplores is explicitly limited to that of editors. If it's been published, the concept of original research is irrelevant. People's agendas and historiography are likewise irrelevant to whether or not a topic is notable, which is determined only by the extent to which it is covered by reliable sources. So if the sources we would otherwise rely on for notability of this topic -- and justification of a stand-alone article -- are not reliable (and I haven't yet looked closely myself), that's one thing, but these other things aren't reasons for deletion. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Whatever we do, do NOT merge or redirect: The claim that Lincoln was gay is hilariously stupid.  As the article says its a "fringe" issue.  Similarly, the idea that someone else wrote Shakespeare is also incredibly stupid, yet such silliness has spawned hundreds of books.  It is a maxim that everyone is gay on the internet somewhere, but this case, of only a very few (see Category:Sexuality of individuals) has become a notable one.  Thus we are doomed to forever reverting gay slur edits in this article. (Though one guy who was likely gay doesn't have a separate article: Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell (4th nomination)).--Milowent • hasspoken  19:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep as the nomination is actually asking for merging/redirecting and AfDs are not for that. Also, no reason as such is provided in rationale; WP:OSE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:39, 8 December 2015 (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.