Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell (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.  нмŵוτн τ  20:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The question of Baden-Powell's sexual orientation is already touched upon (without the undue weight that this article carries) in the main article about him. Whether that section needs expansion is another issue, but there is no need for a separate article. Dethme0w (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently my motive for AfD'ing this is being misunderstood. This is not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, in fact I think the subject is very interesting and eye-opening.  I just see that a year after a no-consensus close of the last AfD, there is still very much no consensus on the status of this article.  I had hoped that re-merging its core points back to the main article would abate the contentiousness I am seeing here.  However this time, it looks like we may actually achieve a consensus to Keep, and either way, the issue can be put to bed. Dethme0w (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep it sounds like this nomination is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, perhaps a clarification could be made as to why, according to policy, this article should be deleted? It is sourced with references, so it's not an issue with WP:RS. There may be some WP:NPOV issues, but this is not a reason for deletion. The reason for a separate article is probably because Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell is over 40kb long already. Fosnez (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I just moved the page, as this is the third nomination... but i fracked it up right royally... sorry about that. Fosnez (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - The reasons why this material is not included in his main article are covered in the first deletion debate. What's changed? William Avery (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Intereting that all three noms have come in Feb. I guess this is an annual rite of some kind ;-) Seriously though, nothing has changed so keep the article. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - We have been over this, nothing has changed. Also, the first message (by User:Calvin 1998) informing me of this deletion has an aggressive/condescending tone, styling my actions as an "attack" and threatening me with future reprisals. So there is some kind of emotional agenda at work here, as far as I can see. Haiduc (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That "personal attacks" notice is a standard vandalism template generated with WP:TWINKLE. This was probably not an appropriate use. --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  14:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And FWIW, I didn't tag the article for speedy as an attack. Calling someone gay shouldn't be considered an attack unless the caller is homophobic and thus means insult by it (and I do tag lots of articles with G10 on that basis every day), and of course WP:BLP doesn't apply here.  I nominated this article for deletion because I see that the lack of consensus on its existence, and the weight given to it, is problematic.  Dethme0w (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for reference, User:Calvin 1998 is 12 years old.  Corvus cornix  talk  22:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clear stuff up, I was using Twinkle to CSD that, which automatically produces that message, which is a template anyhow. It's not a vandalism notice, and it's produced automatically upon CSD-ing. Calvin 1998   Talk   Contribs  00:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Any point I could make here is covered in previous discussions. --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  11:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - A former scout.. Dont know how WP's deletion policy is, dont care.. However, its the first time that I've come across the notion that he was gay, well bi.. Point is, the sub-column on BP's main page on this matter is too brief. While I clicked this link mainly out of curiosity for controversies, the arguents are well laid out and not biased. Thus, even as a scout, I wouldn't argue for its removal. Afterall WP's job is to provide info, not decide on rights and wrongs by controlling controversial information. Happy 151th Bday Baden! -Chironjit- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.93.174 (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UNDUE. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is not encyclopediatic material, by no means. --Soman (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keep more than enough sources. The main article on Baden-Powell is already very long. WP:V/WP:RS are what matter here. (I have to say that I'm a bit surprised that there is this much well-sourced content on this topic but hey...). The previous AfDs give additional good reasons for keeping. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - What is the objection here? This is well-sourced, notable information spun off from a long article. The fact that this is already touched on in the main article is not grounds for deletion, it is standard procedure for splitting off sections of an article. If any kind of merge is to be considered, this information should be moved in its entirety, not just "key points." That smacks of some kind of censorship or diminishing of the facts, and the only motives I can think of for that are inappropriate. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 22:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd call it innuendo rather than facts. It seems to fail WP:UNDUE, WP:POVFORK and WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete/Shrink - As non-notable. I can understand having an article on the sexuality of Jesus Christ, but do we really need a page for this person? There really aren't grounds for having such a large article solely dedicated to this. I don't see the problem with condensing the quotes (or removing them entirely, seeing they take up 80% of the article) and fitting all of this into the main article on Baden-Powell. It also doesn't follow NPOV, which states you would have to lay out all the evidence, including evidence stating this person was straight (which seems to be the academic consensus, except for these 2 authors). Calvin 1998   Talk   Contribs  01:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - not an encyclopaedic subject for an article. If you must, cover it in a sentence or two in the main Baden-Powell article. - fchd (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Given that he founded the Boy Scouts, this has not unnaturally given rise to some controversy, which is much better dealt with here than the main article.DGG (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sadly this is the way wikipedia deals with this issue on beloved historical figures who were closeted. I could be wrong on that but the trend seems to be removal of any suggestion that "____ is a homo" by annexing the information to anywhere but the main article about the subject. This article seems reasonably well written, reffed and, to me, simply needs improving through regular editing. Expanding why this is a heightened issue for this person would help. Benji boi 00:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to the article about the man himself, definitely don't delete this content. Passes WP:V and WP:RS anyway, so I see no good reason for deletion. However I wouldn't stand for the existence of articles of this type if the subject is a WP:BLP.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A separate article allows a level of detail that would be inappropriately lengthy in the main article. It also makes the topic more maintainable. Queerudite (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for all the reasons given above and note that the two main references (the first 2) are the two most important scholarly accounts of Baden-Powell. --Bduke (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Sexual orientation of Robert Baden-Powell per some MOS I can't remember the acronym for. 141.151.174.43 (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP Topic is notable, particularly with the politics of Boy Scout criteria for scoutmasters. From someone steeped in a family of scouting. --Moni3 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The contention of "undue weight" by the nominator is a subjective judgment which is refuted by the fact that the information exists and has been published. Haiduc (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Huge Delete no real source, just an open attack against the man and "arguments" made compleatly subject to the author's personnal opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.89.46 (talk) 04:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into main article Wow, a lot of emotion in this one.  Let's try to step back for a minute.  The majority of the keep "votes" mention the subject's notability and the articles refs, but I don't think anyone is arguing that well referenced, npov information should be "hidden" or "covered" up through deletion.  Even the original nom said "Whether [the main article] section needs expansion is another issue, but there is no need for a separate article". I think this should have been taken to wp:Proposed mergers instead of wp:AfD, but no matter.  The only argument made against merging this into the main article is that that article is too long.  If that's the case, perhaps something else should be removed, as this information relates directly to the man himself.  Wouldn't Robert Baden-Powell's founding of the scouting movement make a far better sub-article? --jwandersTalk 09:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sourced and notable per all the above and previous AfD arguments. Previous consensus was to split due to size issues and that it's not a POV fork. Merging back would result in an overly large article.  The main article summary section seems appropriate and balanced, and follows style for a summary section. I don't see any POV or attack issues here, as no one is suggesting any improper behavior. This fork article clearly points out that the issue of his sexuality is controversial and that many sources don't support it. However, not only are modern biographers saying that he had an interest in young male bodies, nude or otherwise, but his own words clearly support that interest. I question whether he can be termed homosexual or repressed homosexual, but I think it's sufficiently shown that he had an homoerotic attraction to young males, enjoyed all-male culture, and avoided women until a very late in life marriage that seemed mostly non-sexual. — Becksguy (talk) 10:22, 29 February 2008 (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.