Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality and Space

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 Keep. —Travis^talk 23:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality and space

Sexuality and space (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable, original research -- Mark Chovain 11:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw Torchwoodwho has done an absolutely stellar rewrite on this article. An incredible effort has given us a brilliant article! Great work. -- Mark Chovain 22:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete Very obviously an essay laced with original research, even if it is interesting. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Torchwood's (who?) re-write, now asserts notability as a topic. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, essay. There's obviously some germ of an angle on why there's a boystown in every town, so to speak, but that may be better handled in a broader article like gay village. (I thought this was going to be a dupe of sex in space ... silly me, we don't get po-mo on Wikipedia every day.) --Dhartung | Talk 13:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is no place for essays. Filled with original research Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 13:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep no longer in essay form, OR is sourced now, and no longer OR. Good job, Torchwoodwho. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 03:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Complete WP:OR The name sounds cool though I must admit... :) --Pmedema (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep article has been wiki'd and sourced... still like the name... thinking of "hanky-panky in zero G"... ;) --Pmedema (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

*Strong Delete I tagged this for speedy yesterday because of it's obvious problems, WP:OR being one of them.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as a complete OR-fest. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 18:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Should there be a section in WP:NOT for "articles with titles that would be a great name for a band"? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made substantial changes to the original posting and in a very short period of time I have tried to comply with all the comments made on this page. However, in such a short period of time it is hard to write something that is of quality.

Please do take this topic seriously. Some comments seem to suggest that sexuality and geography don't match. Yet, geographers have been researching sexuality for more than 30 years. I would appreciate any help to improve this page.

• Strong Keep I've made a serious effort toward revamping the article and exploring the fields of study related to the article. This is a Major change and I think the article should be kept, at least for a while, to see where expansion leads us.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you Thank you Torchwoodwho. You have done a good job to give it a proper structure - much better than the essay that I originally pasted in. I also think you know something about sexuality and space - I enjoyed reading your additions. Hopefully, we can avoid a delete. I would like to have some assurances that the page wont be deleted before I invest too much of my time writing. Herngong.
• Keep per Torchwood Who's sourcing. I don't understand it, but it appears to have received significant coverage TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Per Torchwood Who's extensive work on the article. It is now a completely different article and should be treated as such. --Sharkface217 03:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep now sourced, & a good start atan article. --probably the title should be reconsidered, but that's for the talk page. DGG (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep the title Some ppl have questioned the title of this page. Sexuality and space was chosen as a title that would link in from the page on Cultural Geography. The aim of this small project is to outline the known works of geographers who have devoted their research to the spatial dimension of human sexuality - a bit like geographers engagement with gender, race and disability etc.

Alternatives to the title sexuality and space are problematic, but might include gay and lesbian geography - but that would exclude a wide range of human sexualities. Most geographers working in the field d not have a problem with using the term sexuality and space. Remember, of course, that geographers do ascribe specific meaning to the term space. Space refers to a plethora of spatial concepts and not the NASA variety. Herngong

• Delete I dont even get why this article esists

Do you have an argument besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per revisions made. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:23, 24 March 2008 (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.