Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in women's sports

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, defaulting to Keep and Clean Up. ELIMINATORJR 23:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuality in women's sports

Homosexuality in women's sports (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

In summary, its a poorly cited, poorly referenced, orphaned, POV-riddled, speculation-filled, un-encyclopedic article that almost qualified as an essay or rant that shows no signs of improvement. I cannot believe this hasn't been nominated before. Cornell Rockey 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject LGBT - Deletion Discussions — Becksguy 19:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. 90% of the article is bullhocky, as nom correctly points out. It might even have been a term paper that was copy and pasted. However, the topic is a legitimate topic, and if all those references at the bottom of the page are valid, then there should be enough scholarly material out there to write a perfectly fine article. My preferred method for dealing with this article is just removing 90% of the prose that is unsourced, but I won't mourn for the article if it gets deleted. hateless 21:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as it is an unverified mess, but it inherently notable. This ought to be cross-listed with WikiProject LGBT. Bearian 22:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A major problem withthe article is that it is missing in-text citations, making the information very dificult to verify. Still, that being said, the major problem here is not verifiability, but original research. What the article does is take existing information and splices (or perhaps synhesizes) it together to present encourage a particular interpretation, and present an analysis of it as fact. If the subject is indeed notable then a complete rewrite would be in order, but I think the information would be much better served as a small section in Women's sports than as it's own article. Calgary 22:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. It appears this is more of a novel synthesis rather than an actual topic. There are a number of sources listed but I'm unable to assess them as they aren't linked, nor are they cited directly. Happy to change my mind if some evidence that this subject has been given substantial treatment in reliable secondary sources, though. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - the topic of homosexuality in sports, and by extension homosexuality in women's sports, is clearly notable. The article needs a lot of work but there is material there to work with. Otto4711 02:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm beginning see a pattern emerging in AfD's for articles whose names fit the pattern "POV/pejorative/controversial-phenomenon in notable-subject-area". Is this part of some sinister uber-scheme to establish a precedent? Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 05:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I am a bit undecided on this one (yes, I know everyone who knows me is probably shocked to not see an outright keep, but I have to maintain objectivity and honesty). Anyway, the topic seems potentially notable, but I wonder to what extent the article is original research? In any case, a number of references are provided, so perhaps the sub-sections of the article can be expanded to better show what others have written on the topic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this article is at an essay level, with lots of synthesis and original research. Corpx 07:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's a notable topic and, as we're reminded on the front page, wikipedia articles often start out in poor shape. There are references and sources and it will only improve with this exposure at AfD. Nick mallory 08:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article isn't in good shape, but it is an important topic. I would suggest deleting it and starting anew except for the sources provided at the end of the article- which, of course, need to be integrated into the prose itself. I say we keep it, and keep that rewrite tag on top until a lot of improvement is made. -- Kicking222 14:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There is plenty of material to use in regular editing to improve this article. A quick book search yields well over a dozen books [1] and a google scholar search has over a dozen articles and studies [2] . Benjiboi 17:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• comment I will withdraw the nomination if this article can actually be fixed by people who actually know how to cite sources and can make it have a point. however, if it isn't fixed in 3 months, I will bring it back for another AfD. Cornell Rockey 15:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment per WP:AFD - "If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Your promise to re-nominate should instead channel that energy into improving the article itself. Please do not re-abuse the AfD process which is suppose to be reserved for hopeless articles. Benjiboi 21:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Ace of Swords 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic topic, though it badly needs improvement. As usual, Needs improvement justifies improving it, but doesn't justify deletion. --Ace of Swords 20:02, 20 August 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.