Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Perspectives on Human Sexuality

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 smite with fire and brimstone. Krimpet (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Perspectives on Human Sexuality

Christian Perspectives on Human Sexuality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article presents an NPOV stance on a non-notable issue. The subject and point-of-view simply do not tie together. Doko124 00:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Do you mean POV? Even so, it doesn't feel encyclopedic. Bulldog123 00:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies. A bit hazy as of late... I don't think I even completed the deletion entry properly. 74.242.103.208 01:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yea, it's cool. You're logged out too btw. Bulldog123 02:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and salt The title pretty much SAYS it's POV ... I may be a born-again Christian myself, but I don't see an encyclopedia article in this. Recommend salting it as well.Blueboy96 01:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, not really POV. It gives a brief explanation to the issue at hand and doesn't really violate the NPOV clauses. I have to dissent with the need to salt this at this time; we'll cross that bridge if we come to it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The title itself makes it irredeemably POV ... that's why I think it ought to be salted as a precaution.Blueboy96 02:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Might want to read WP:BEANS. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete per Dennis The Tiger. An article may be writable about this, but it would need to be fully sourced. As it stands, the title explains that it does only present one POV. It could stand a little balancing, perhaps something about response from other groups. I could see POV problems if it was given a misleading title like Perspectives on Human Sexuality. Perhaps its a POV fork of another article, but this is a fairly significant subject within Christian morality. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be a significant issue within Christian morality, but Wikipedia is not a medium for this. Unless the issue were quite notable (in a general sense -- not simply by Christian standards) then it does not merit an entire encyclopedia article of its own. So far, the subject article cannot stand on its own merits enough to suggest such notability. 74.242.103.208 02:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "a general sense." Are you suggesting that every article here should be significant to everyone everywhere? I doubt everyone in China cares about Canton, Minnesota (I live in the midwestern US and I don't care about it.) but that doesn't mean we should not have an article on it. A Google search for Christian sexuality gets 1,720,000 results and an Amazon.com book search gets 1,543 results. For now, the part of Religion and sexuality#Christianity and sexuality above the {{POV}} tag covers this effectively. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is only a subsidiary of Christian belief, and one that's importance does not extend outside of Christianity. That aside, there are issues with the POV suggested by this subject. i.e., should we have an article about Christian perspectives on Paganism? After all, that is of importance to the history of Christianity and development of the world. Not at all -- the subject is convered in numerous other articles, but doesn't need warrant an article of its own. This issue is the same. It has been brought up in other articles where relevant, but isn't so notable (or expansive) that it deserves its own article. 74.242.103.208 03:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"one that's importance does not extend outside of Christianity" -- eh? You mean the debate over whether or not U.S. foreign aid should go to birth control in Christian and non-Christian countries is not affected by Christian perspectives on sexuality? How much do you say that Brooklyn Bridge costs? Noroton 03:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Very Weak Delete. In my opinion, this article contains extensive original research, but more importantly much of what is asserted is really only applicable to certain parts of the world, certain (admittedly major) sects of Christianity, and certain time frames. I don't think this topic is non-notable; Christian views (and even if this is kept, can we get rid of that sesquipedelian word "perspectives" please?) on sexuality have affected the political, military, social, and cultural worlds. However, Christian views on sexuality are far more varied worldwide than this article admits, and have changed significantly through time. This is a very good article on 20th and 21st century North American Catholic and Protestant views on human sexuality, but even as that it requires attribution. It might simply be easier to start again with a perspective through time from early Christianity to medieval times to the differences between Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant views to the increasing differences between the more liberal European and Canadian church views about sexuality and those held by most sects in the United States and developing countries. It's a notable subject, but this article is not the one the subject deserves. --Charlene 03:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The subject of "Christian perspectives of sexuality" belongs only in articles where there is a clear correlation between sexual behavior and Christian influence. So far, the demand for this has not been extensive enough to warrant an entire article in itself. 74.242.103.208 06:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment in what kind of weird parallel universe does the subject of the perspectives of the world's biggest religion on one of the most important subjects of humanity become "a non-notable issue"? Answer: A very, very distant parallel universe, nowhere close to the one we happen to inhabit. No opinion on this particular article, but the subject is so obviously worthy of an encyclopedia article that it's hard to know where to even begin to argue the point. Let me just point out that volume upon volume has been written on the subject, not just over the course of decades and centuries, but millennia. Noroton 03:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You're conceding bias with your entire comment. Whether or not Christianity itself is notable is not the problem -- the problem is that this article covers an individual perspective of an individual issue without notable relation to the issue itself, or any counter-balance to the article's perspective in general. Keep in mind that Wikipedia seeks to present neutral, encyclopedia information. Unless we were discussing a notable social issue, (which is my entire argument -- Christian perspectives of sexuality is hardly notable enough to merit an article of its own) then articles covering a single perspective need to be kept strictly minimum. 74.242.103.208 06:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my tone. I don't handle being flabbergasted very well. I'll work on it. I thought notability had something to do with whether or not a subject was covered by reliable sources, or have the Wikipedia standards on notability changed that much since the last time I checked? I have no idea what your meaning is when you write "You're conceding bias with your entire comment". Bias normally has to do with taking sides. The only comments I've made are in taking sides on whether or not the subject is important. We have articles on all sorts of subjects having to do with particular religions. This should be no different. Religious belief is, actually, provably of some importance in this world. In fact, you can't understand the topic of how Western societies have treated human sexuality through history without delving into Christian perspectives, and that requires an article, not just a section of some other article. I'm not being partial to Christianity here: I think separate articles on what each of the world's major religions have to say about sexuality would be entirely appropriate. It offers enormous insight into not only the cultural history of sexuality but of treatment of marriage, treatment of women, of homosexuals, etc. Noroton 18:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete not because the subject is not worthy of an encyclopedia article, but because the article we have is not backed up by any footnotes or other kinds of citations, which the subject requires. The article should be deleted and rewritten from the ground up. My opinion would change if citations were added.Noroton 03:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - There are just about as many Christian perspectives on sexuality as there are perspectives held by non-Christians. It's like having an article called "What Black People Think about Spaghetti". Nobody can speak for them as a group (and any attempt to do so blatantly violates NPOV policy) and the things they could say wouldn't be significantly different from what anyone else says. DreamGuy 08:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the article should be deleted; as has been stated, the article contains relevant issues, its just from a bias POV. If anybody knows about this topic, I think it would be best to try to redeem the article than to simply delete it. Monkeymox 09:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I'm pretty sure that "Human Sexuality" is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, however this article is, and always will be, unacceptably POV. Lankiveil 10:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
• Reluctant delete, and not for the reasons given above. You can write an NPOV article on this topic, just like you can write an article on any other particular point of view. The problems I see with the article are: 1) poor title (perhaps Christianity and human sexuality and 2) complete lack of sources. There is plenty of material out there on this topic, and an article based upon those sources should be welcomed on Wikipedia. - Chardish 17:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral/Rename, This page could be quite helpful if it was classified the right way. Looking at all of the arguments, its tough to make a decision based on what has been said, but I took into account whether or not this is worth keeping and whether it fits the criteria of Wiki-standards. First, this article would end up growing far too large if this title is kept. Not only because there are 300 sects of Christianity, but more because this title fits so many different topics. Second, the POV section of this debate is quite valid, therefore, the only material that could be allowed are from the leaders of the respective Churches (i.e. Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople etc.). By keeping this page, it will snowball in to questions like "Who can give a perspective" and "What is human sexuality". This page may be worth keeping, but it will likely prove to be too tough to maintain. Sens08 20:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Relevance aside, just how would we go about presenting this topic in a NPOV? We aren't even sure if the views presented by the current article accurately reflect a fair consensus among the Christian community. As mentioned, there are several subsets and variations of Christianity, so defining Christian morality has more or less become subjective and demographic. I'm sure some Christians may even take offense at the assertions made by this article. It's just a horrible mess of an issue to have on Wikipedia. I think if we're going to cover the issue, we should only do so on a purely historical basis, and not speculate about modern Christian perspectives. 74.242.103.208 21:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Possible sources include The unauthorized guide to sex and the church / by Carmen Renee Berry., Human sexuality and the churches : Sarum consultation /, The way forward? : Christian voices on homosexuality and the church /, Faithful conversation : Christian perspectives on homosexuality /, Authentic human sexuality : an integrated Christian approach /, Sexuality and the Christian body : their way into the triune God /, Sexuality and Christianity : a bibliography focusing on the Catholic experience /, Christian perspectives on sexuality and gender /, Found wanting : women, Christianity and sexuality /, Reflections on the churches and sexuality : widening the horizons : the address given at the Chr.... So the topic is clearly notable (although even many delete votes above concede this). Unreferenced is not a deletion criteria, last time I checked, if it's been established that the subject is notable. I agree this is a broad subject area and may need sub-articles to cover each branch of christianity in appropriate detail, but people, this is far more notable than the latest Lost episode or Pokemon character. Finally, although the article could definitely be improved, I really only agree with the delete and start-over philosophy if the article is absolute garbage, e.g., complete spam or hopeless attack ad. - Aagtbdfoua 23:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, to me, notability isn't at issue - it's the OR factor. I for one don't question the notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Every time you vote to keep, it makes the saints cry --Infrangible 01:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment one reason which does not apply is original research There is neither research, nor an adequate compilation of material. The article is just a sketch, just an outline. There would be some point in having articles on manageable topics, such as "C.P. on divorce". 440 words on this does not constitute R of any sort.. Nor is it a useful guide to more specific articles-- just 14 see alsos? ten times as many are needed.

another reason that does not in my opinion apply is "NPOV". The apparent point of the article is to present the different Christian perspectives--it will be hard enough doing that objectively. That there are other perspectives is obvious from the title, and would be discussed in--to use my previous example-- "Divorce".

It's neither spam nor attack--just an inadequate article, and there would be nothing much lost if it were started afresh. DGG 02:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Cannot possibly present a neutral point of view. There are a multitude of forms of Christianity worldwide, of which there are likely a multitude of views on human sexuality.--Xnuala (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Considering some of the supportive comments, I believe we should salt the article. This is purely on the basis that the subject cannot present itself in NPOV. If someone would like to propose a less POV rough draft, (maybe on the talk page) then I'll reconsider my position toward rewritting the article. 74.242.103.208 12:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • So you are suggesting we salt it because of some dissent to deletion? That's not at all what salting is intended for. "Pages that are repeatedly re-created after deletion in unencyclopedic form or against policy can be protected from further re-creation." That is why pages are salted. As far as I can tell, this page has never been recreated in any form. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I dissent, for the same reason that Z above dissents, and also because we should not have to tell people not to stick beans in their nose. If it is deleted and recreated subsequently, we react as per WP:CSD#G4, and place a {{db-repost}} on the article. If it still gets recreated, then and ONLY then do we salt the earth. Don't get so hasty, now! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'm probably being a bit too hasty. I just think that if the proposal to re-write the article has met this much support without any convincing evidence that it can present itself in a neutral POV, then it would be precautionary to salt it and avoid the whole issue of having the debate resurrected again. On a side-note, I have a dynamic address, so my IP may switch ranges ocassionally. I hope this doesn't come off as sock-puppetry. I should probably start logging in... 74.242.103.155 03:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Mnyeh, no worries. That "Remember Me" box at the login prompt proves useful, just use it wisely. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A few sources to back up these claims would help this article very much. It is certainly a notable issue, NPOV may be a problem be a problem, but I am not entirely sure. This is when sources help. daveh4h 21:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- Aagtbdfoua 22:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR--Sefringle 23:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A lot of the articles linked to from this one are in desperate need of clean-up due to POV-violations. I was looking over them today, but I doubt I have the time to deal with all of them simultaneously. Can others please look into these? Thanks. 74.242.103.175 16:21, 16 May 2007 (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.