Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Osama bin Laden


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sexuality of Osama bin Laden

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is not about a notable aspect of Bin Laden's persona. Virtually all people are sexually active, and this sure wasn't the reason for Bin Laden's fame. The article is based on some news reports of an interview with one of Bin Laden's wives in which she said he was good in bed, and some stories speculating on whether sex drugs and porn found in Bin Laden's compound last year belonged to him or even existed. The topic of Bin Laden's sex life isn't mentioned at all in the Osama bin Laden article (which doesn't even link to this article) and having a whole article on it seems to violate WP:NOTNEWS. While we do have Category:Sexuality of individuals, the sexuality of all the other people covered by articles within its scope has been the subject of considerable attention in serious scholarly works. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment No person, listed in Category:Sexuality of individuals, is famous for their sexuality. But coverage of their sexuality in secondary publications made them worthy of articles. I created this article because I believed the widespread coverage in mainstream media makes it pass GNG. The coverage is not tabloid yellow journalism, but attention and analysis by notable individuals such as Roderick Long, Asra Nomani (who provides a feminist interpretation of Osama's sexuality), William Saletan, Susie Bright may make the topic notable, I thought. This was my rationale for this article. However I don't have any strong opinion here, so I'll not vote either keep or Delete. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  13:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Inherently non-encyclopedic topic. Even Sexuality of Bill Clinton, for all the millions of words of coverage of that, would be unencyclopedic, in my view. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Those of you wanting to read an opinion essay rather than hear an opinion opinion, are invited to partake of WP:COATRACK. But that's just an opinion itself. The topic inherently violates NPOV, that's the main point. Carrite (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There's nothing here to base an article on. All we have is "There was some medicine for dyspepsia which doesn't increase libido but he might have thought it did" and "There was reportedly some porn in the house but no one knows who's it was". Oh, and "his former wife said that she liked to have sex with him". --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Prurient coverage in the mainstream media does not support encyclopedic notability. The WP:OTHERSTUFF argument doesn't fly here: Shakespeare, Lincoln etc. have sexuality articles because their sexuality is the subject of long-term scholarly discussion. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So if there is a lot of prurience for a long time, it becomes scholarship? Anarchangel (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - there's no need for this article. It has no place in an encyclopedia, and merely serves as fodder for speculation. Wer900 (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Disappointed: I fully expected this article to be about whether Osama was gay.  It is a strict Internet Rule that any truly famous person will be speculated to be or have been gay.  This includes Osama bin Laden..  Beyond that, I'd have to agree with the majority here that Osama being a porn-obsessed horndog is not independently notable.--Milowent • hasspoken  16:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOTTABLOID, which if it does not exist, should. Gossipy, TMZ-style crap given undue weight. Tarc (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a gossip magazine. Mar4d (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Selective merge to Osama bin Laden, per WP:DUE. -- Trevj (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which of the three factoids I mentioned above do you think we should merge? --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename "This article is not about a notable aspect of Bin Laden's persona." I agree, if that statement is taken at face value only. It is about the attempt to paint him as a hypocrite for propaganda purposes.
 * "I have no problem believing that Bin Laden was a hypocrite. But I also have no problem believing that the US government is a liar. Hence I have no opinion one way or other as to the existence of Bin Laden's alleged porn collection." - Philosopher Roderick Long
 * The claim of discovery of pornography was met with skepticism with skeptics asserting the American intelligence community deliberately spreading rumor as part of their psychological warfare against Al-Qaeda.
 * William Saletan writing in Slate described the claim of founding pornography as a "propaganda war aimed at persuading Muslims". According to the analysis by Saletan, conservative Muslim sympathizers of Osama bin Laden are likely to be opposed to pornography and would be more shocked by pornography than by terrorism.
 * According to David Randall of The Independent, many bloggers found the claim of discovery of pornography laughable
 * "However, sceptics claimed the revelation could have been engineered by US intelligence authorities as part of their propaganda war against the terror organisation." - The Telegraph
 * Journalist and Islamic feminist Asra Nomani writing in The Daily Beast asserted "conspiracy theorists" in the Muslim world might dismiss the coverage on pornography as a hoax, claiming it was deliberately propagated by the US.
 * Anarchangel (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's sounds like a rewrite, not just a rename. And Conspiracy theories about Osama bin Laden and his prOn stash doesn't seem encyclopedic either.--Milowent • hasspoken  21:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Article is (more) about sexual activity not sexuality of bin Laden. Anyway, it's silly article, full of gossip and trivia. Wikipedia is not a tabloid-- В и к и  T   22:17, 24 March 2012 (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.