Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non notable book. only 68 holdings in worldcat. One mention in a bibliography does not make for notability  DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by a mention in a bibliography. The book used as a source is not a listing of other books; it's a book about homosexuality, and discusses Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity among other books. Could you please explain what you mean, DGG? The fact that only one source is provided in the article does not mean that other sources do not exist or could not be added. If you look up Kenneth Zucker's Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Children and Adolescents, for example, you will find that Zucker (who is a well known figure) reviewed Rekers's book in 1984 in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. I must also note that BKCRIT nowhere says that a book's notablity depends on the number of holdings in worldcat. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not assert any notability and does not pass WP:NBOOK. Softlavender (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 20:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 20:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Have any of the delete voters above even bothered to consider that Zucker's review would help establish notability? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added an additional source to establish notability, an article published in Archives of Sexual Behavior, which is a reputable peer-reviewed publication. I now believe the article meets the first of the five criteria given at BKCRIT: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable. One ref requires an account and another only mentions the book in passing. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but you're arguing that the article should be deleted because "one ref requires an account"? When, exactly, did that ever become a valid reason for deleting an article? What basis does it have in policy? Articles do need to be properly cited, but a ref that "requires an account" is a perfectly valid source. Is there some special reason why you would make such a specious deletion argument? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to George Alan Rekers (the author). The Zucker review appears a valid source, but WP:BOOK requires multiple in-depth reviews. We don't need to have an article on every book Rekers wrote, especially as the main article sets out his beliefs and theories. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It requires significant coverage from multiple sources, and I believe this has been provided. Zucker's article and LeVay's book are the two key sources. Your other argument is equivalent to (for example) arguing that articles about Freud's individual books should be deleted because of the existence of the article Sigmund Freud; the fact that there is an article about an author is never a reason for deleting articles about his books. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All Freud's books are discussed in many sources, and his ideas are so complicated and subject of so many interpretations it is completely unfeasible to cover them in one article. I don't see hundreds of scholarly works on Rekers. If by chance you can name a Freud book that genuinely isn't discussed in third party sources, I would support a merge or other treatment.
 * The policy of merging non-notable books is supported by WP:BKMERGE. Zucker's article is certainly one source, but LeVay's appears to be a brief mention, not an in-depth review (indeed not any kind of a review): WP:BKCRIT requires the book to be "the subject" of multiple articles or reviews, not just mentioned in passing. If you can show LeVay provides in-depth discussion, that would help. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is LeVay's discusion of the book in full: "Later Rekers began to reveal a virulent antipathy toward homosexuality. In his 1982 book, Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity, Rekers described homosexuality as a 'promiscuous and perverted sexual behavior,' and he bemoaned the fact that 'homosexuality has been sold to the unwary public as a right between consenting adults.'" It may be brief, but I don't consider it trivial. More importantly, I've found a source that discusses the book in much more detail: Fit to Teach: Same-Sex Desire, Gender, and School Work in the Twentieth Century, by Jackie M. Blount. It says that Rekers's book was influential; I've added the source. You can check it yourself on Google Books; see here. I would ask you and the other delete voters to reconsider your position. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment I would accept a merge to the author. I should have thought of that initially. We could justify a separate article perhaps on the basis of the added material, but I think it would be more helpful merged, and according to WP:N, we can choose to do that.  DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me what the advantage of a merge would be. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm going to say keep. It's clear how it is significant and It has plenty of mentions. This article in the Village Voice refers to as the author's "classic book" —Мандичка YO 😜 15:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as an independent article. I was able to find two books on Questia that cite the book and at least six newspaper articles, five of which specifically mention the book in the context of Rekers' rentboy scandal. Rekers himself is historically significant given his influence on LGBT rights and his "expert" testimony in court cases, thus supporting criteria No. 6 of WP:NBOOK.- MrX 12:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * what your argument actually supports  is a merge to Rekkers, if the book is significant in his work. He's not so famous that any book of his is necessarily notable.  DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing an argument there; there is no basis for a merge. There are enough sources that discuss and analyse this book independently of the author to show that it is independently notable. The discussion has gone on long enough and can be ended; it's at least a no consensus result. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Can we please end this discussion? It has dragged on for more than two weeks now, and even if there isn't a consensus to keep the article, there is at least no consensus to delete it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:02, 25 May 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.