Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reduced Gene Pool Argument

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)

[edit] Reduced Gene Pool Argument

this user is creating MULTIPLE articles on ONE author's views of homosexuality. And this author is not even within the science field. See Either_Or_Argument and vote as well. And also see Homosexuality's section on changeable and permanent and talk page discussion to see how much of a fringe minority this view is. NARTH being 1000 psychologsit while APA, China, EU, representing hundreds of thousands contradicting their view. 67.41.236.211 2 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)

• Delete, user appears to be acting in bad faith. If these truly are Matt Ridley's arguments (something I tend to doubt), it can be discussed in the Matt Ridley article. No need to devote a separate article to every position that Ridley, or more likely this user, holds. Dcarrano July 3, 2005 00:57 (UTC)
• Delete if it's just one guy's argument, it's highly unlikely to be notable. CDC (talk) 3 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)
• Delete complete rubbish. No Google hits except this article, and a search inside Ridley's book cited shows that Ridley didn't say what this guy claims he said (see pages 116-118 of this edition: ISBN 0060932902). --Calton | Talk 3 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, original research. -- BD2412 ^talk July 3, 2005 02:03 (UTC)
• Delete. I've read this book, Ridley gives this as something to explain rather than a blanket statement. This article misleads the reader into thinking Ridley is actually arguing for this view. platypeanArchcow 3 July 2005 04:17 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, POV fork. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 3 July 2005 07:51 (UTC)
• Delete: Not one Google result. Not notable. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 09:20 (UTC)
• Delete: This user is well-known for the creation of homosexuality-related articles that advance his political agenda, and this page seems to have been created with that goal in mind as well. He is also known for making arbitrary edits or removing NPOV/VfD notices altogether. It's clear he has a political agenda is mind, as well as the suppression of opposing viewpoints. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 17:12 (UTC)
• Delete: original research, non-notable, bad-faith edit. Tobycat 3 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)
• Keep:I cannot force anyone to open their mind, I can only hope to encourage it.Intellectualprop2002 3 July 2005 18:05 (UTC)
• Delete original research and bad reference. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)
• Delete orig research. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable original research. CDThieme 3 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)
• Delete; scientifically flawed, with no addressing of inclusive fitness at all, and does not deserve a separate article. --Maru 3 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)
• Delete, scientifically flawed, fake reference, not supported in Ridley's work, offensive, POV pushing, failure to address nature vs nurture arguments, failure to pass the google test, NN, abusive user. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 22:13 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Xoloz 4 July 2005 05:06 (UTC)
• Delete - POV pushing - Skysmith 4 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable neologism, original research and POV pushing. Axon 4 July 2005 12:25 (UTC)
• Delete--Dejan Čabrilo 5 July 2005 12:20 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.