Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lionelt/List of ex-gay people

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Lionelt/List of ex-gay people


The article of which this is a draft was recently snow deleted due largely to BLP issues and poor sourcing, and this draft is actually even worse! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and the AFD. MER-C 08:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete BLP minefield that shouldn't be hanging around anywhere. Hut 8.5 10:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Poorly sourced and major BLP and POV issues. Composition of list is OR and SYNTH. Of no possible encyclopedic value. Obvious promotion of political cause. Most sources are self-promoting self-published political advocacy sites. Nothing is worth saving. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed, promoting a political cause, biased and extremely POV. Sources are also self published in many cases and serve only to promote an agenda and sell books using Wikipedia as the vehicle.  J e n o v a  20 15:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Why can't he keep it in his own userspace sandbox? NYyankees51 (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because WP:FAKEARTICLE: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host...deleted content," and WP:BLPTALK: "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree with NYyankees51, there is no reason Lionelt cannot keep this in his personal space. Christian1985 (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not "his personal" space. See WP:UP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per those above. Badly sourced, and seems to be for promoting that cause.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 23:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this BLP violation. Per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:FAKEARTICLE plus WP:RS WP:V WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:BLP et al. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete There was a reason that there was such strong feeling for deletion at the AfD - this a poorly sourced list of names based on a contentious link. BLP violations should not appear in the user space, any more than in the main space.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 07:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This draft has not been edited once in almost six months, which prompts WP:STALEDRAFT concerns. Furthermore, the subject of the article is a contentious one, relating to living persons, which therefore prompts WP:BLP concerns. The List of ex-gay people article was deleted for very good reason - the fact that this draft is in someone's userspace is nowhere near a sufficiently compelling rationale for keep. I also note the external link to Ex-GayTruth.com, which discusses the movement "from a conservative Christian perspective" - is a particular POV being pushed here, I wonder? If so, it isn't well disguised.  Super Mario  Man  09:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. (Setting the sourcing issue aside for the moment), how is this any different than the List of LGB people?  --  Kenatipo    speak! 15:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply To be honest i wouldn't have thought either list was notable, especially since a random list of LGB would be incredibly difficult to patrol and have numerous BLP issues.  J e n o v a  20 10:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the ex-gay movement could be considered a POV religious concept - it's certainly a POV name. It's also a relatively small (and questionably notable) movement in comparison to LGBT. Compounded with the sourcing issues, and the BLP issues I'd be surprised any admin at WP:REFUND would have userfied this article.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The very existence of "ex-gay" people is highly contested. If anyone is wrongly labelled in this list it could cause serious harm to them. Hut 8.5 10:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In my experience ex-gay is always religiously motivated and trying to cure with prayer or bonding exercises, is disowned by every major psychology/medical board (UK and US especially) and is usually only ever in the news for one of their ex-gays falling off the wagon and onto a gay man.It must be one of the most controversial things to add to Wikipedia if not THE most.  J e n o v a  20 11:20, 5 September 2011 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.