Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-gays

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 of the debate was delete. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 02:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Half-gays

A theory that there are two portions of an individual that are "mutated" when they are gay. Original research, and fairly bigoted research at that. Meelar (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Speedy delete. POV original research, absurd and bigoted. Durova 06:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

This is just an idea and i do not see how it is bigoted. I am doing this to get my idea out because I do not have the capabilites nor the knowledge of how to aquire data proving my theory. There is nothing wrong with presenting mere ideas to people (when i said "I believe").

• Delete per Wikipedia:No Original Research. NatusRoma 06:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nice example of why the Wikipedia:No Original Research policy is a good idea for an encyclopedia. --W.marsh 07:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Edwardian 08:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOR A1kmm 09:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• "I believe..."? Delete; this isn't even research. --Zetawoof 09:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. "I believe". Yeah, right. As if encyclopedia articles "believed" anything. — JIP | Talk 10:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to announce non-researched original ideas either. As far as I know there's not even consensus about the effects of genetics on sexuality. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "I do not have the capabilites nor the knowledge of how to aquire data proving my theory." If you don't have the knowledge, don't post it on an encyclopedia. 11:12, 10 November 2005 (EST)
• Delete per above. --Syrthiss 20:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Baseless speculation is never encyclopedic. Jtmichcock 05:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Small, small chance that this idea could be added to a page listing theories about origins/causes of homosexuality. But the piece itself is way below Wikipedia standards. President Lethe 16:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, original research. *drew 01:06, 16 November 2005 (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.