Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Petros471 19:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln

  • Strong Delete This article has not reliable sources is filled with POV and is basically pro homosexual. I suggest delete the thing or at least merge it with the main article. Most of it has no refs. Potters house 14:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Topic has been written about by several authors, commented on extensively on TV, and written about in newsmagazines. It was made a separate article long ago because it was too long & too focussed for inclusion in main article. Improve article rather than delete it. --JimWae 15:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. There were already numerous sources in the article - I added quite a few more today--JimWae 04:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps a better article would be Personal Life of Abraham Lincoln. This would also include his depression & his family life - also topics about which much has appeared in print & media. This article would be a place to begin from --JimWae 21:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The point made above would be fine but those issues aren't disputed. His sexuality is, and as always when the issue of possible bisexuality or homosexuality arises with an historical figure, those objecting to it demand infinitely greater detailing and citations than heterosexual speculation. The scenario always goes like this: (a) someone inserts the claim (b) claim disputed and citation demanded (c) citation provided (d) single citation disputed as slim evidence and claim deleted (e) claim inserted with addition citations (f) detailed and referenced claim now disputed as imbalancing the article (g) article split off (h) split off article now claimed to be unnecessary. Rinse and repeat. In other words, it's impossible to placate bigots, because they only operate on a policy of absolute denial. The split off article is the best compromise to provide detailing of the possibility of Lincoln's bisexuality, given that even the mere suggestion of such will never be accepted, or indeed tolerated, by some, and further, because Lincoln's relationships were of a complexity that requires length to properly detail their context for both sides.

(Comments irrelevant to AFD discussion elided to help keep debate from degenerating.)

  • Delete and summarize one sentence in Abraham Lincoln. Having a giant article on this claim is ridiculous! 68.111.72.167 21:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is pretty thorough and includes mentions of this topic from several authors. It is definitely noteworthy enough to keep. -- KillerDeathRobot 21:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

(Comments irrelevant to AFD discussion elided to help keep debate from degenerating.)

    • Comment None of that really matters. The topic of this article was not created by one Wikipedian and one Wikipedian isn't the only source for the claim that Lincoln may have been homosexual. The article has a number of citations that show a number of authors have made this claim. Whether the claim is true or false is somewhat immaterial to whether this article should be kept. There is clearly some debate on the issue amongst a number of notable scholarly sources and this is a topic that is noteworthy enough to stay. In any case, the article does not claim that Lincoln was in fact homosexual. The conclusion it seems to draw, insofar as it draws any conclusions, is that he might have been homosexual or bisexual, but probably was not. -- KillerDeathRobot 19:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(Comments irrelevant to AFD discussion elided to help keep debate from degenerating.)

  • Delete I don't see why an entire article on this subject is warranted. A paragraph under the primary Lincoln article would suffice. J.R. Hercules 06:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • comment when that was tried, one paragraph became 2 became 7. The topic is one discussed in several books & articles & is not easliy confined to one paragraph. I do think it still requires more balance, however --JimWae 06:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this article has potential as an extensive topic. It is perhaps too extensive to be merged with Abraham Lincoln's main article and requires independence due to its controversial nature. Though it is controversial, it does have a number of reputable sources and I feel this is a definite keep with room for improvement (as do all articles on Wikipedia). Valley2city 05:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Historically it is of interest. The sources are strong and there is clear and compelling reason to suspect that the move to delete is politically motivated. Jliberty 03:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I found it an interesting and well-sourced article. A good encapsulation of a controversy that has swirled around Ol' Abe in recent years, but certainly nothing that attempts to further a case in any direction. Pleather 00:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Just saw this, checking the recently changed pages list. I read through the article quickly, don't see anything wrong with it, certainly don't see any reason to delete it. Disagreeing with the theory the article is discussing is not a reason to delete it, and the only reason I can see anyone would try to delete it is just that, they disagree with the theory. Riphal 00:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. POV fork. Merge what little can be verified if at all (i.e. is not just some writer's speculation) to Abraham Lincoln. This article is inherently original research no matter what references it cites, because those references are themselves speculation and original research. KleenupKrew 02:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Um...can you kindly re-read WP:OR? I think your signals are crossed on this one. 205.157.110.11 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There's been a great deal of speculation as to Abraham Lincoln's sexuality for a while, and whenever a large publisher releases a book that mentions it, it gets nation wide coverage. For me, that does establish the notability of the subject. I don't see the article as being POV. There's (at least in some of the sections) mention of the arguments as to why some of the "evidence" doesn't show him being gay. This is the sort of subject that I can see people looking up in Wikipedia the next time a book that mentions the subject comes out (no pun intended). --- The Bethling(Talk) 04:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The article deals primarily with the debate over Lincoln's secuality. That debate is academically notable as the article makes abundently clear. Whether in fact Lincoln was actually gay, straight, or bi is almost completly besides the point. Claims that this should be deleted or merged because we can never conclusively prove anything in this debate also miss the point. If that was the standard of notability, then almost all articles on history, anthropology, archeology etc (at least the interesting ones) should be deleted. Indeed, almost any article involving competing claims and contravsial subjects would need to be deleted. Wikipedia does not require that issues be settled. Only that they be verifiable. The material in this article cites crediable secondary sources in a notable controversy. It also discusss criticisms and alternative interpretations. This is fair game for a stand alone Wikipedia article. Jdclevenger 05:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per KillerdeathRobot and others above. The topic is a subject of scholarly debate (Just the same as Intelligent Design) and whether or not it's true does not matter (Just like with ID--and who would argue that they have an agenda?) as long as the article is sourced per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. The article is not perfect but it certainly not grounds for delete. As a side note, I do like the suggestion to rename to Personal life of Abraham Lincoln for the reasons mentioned by JimWae. Not only would that lessen the claims of an agenda behind it, it would open the article up to other relevant details of Abe's life. 205.157.110.11 07:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious Delete What's next on Wikipedia, we write articles called, "Food preferences of Abraham Lincoln" and people vote to keep based on how well sourced it is? There's no reason or purpose to such stuff. It might be enjoyable to speculate whether or not Lincoln enjoyed cherry pie more than apple pie, but really, an encyclopedic article on such a preference? Hey, did he prefer white socks or black socks? Obvious POV fork and complete nonsense. Let's not let idle minds with lot's of free time for historical speculation ruin a perfectly good encyclopedia.Bagginator 11:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If several books and numerous scholarly articles and a number of symposia were available that dealt with "Food preferences of Abraham Lincoln", then yes we should have such an article. I personally happen to have a strong interst in food and culture. But those materials aren't there and so neither is the article. Bagginator and others may feel this is trival. They are welcome to their POV. But there is sufficent debate, controversy, and documentation to warrent the inclusion of this article. Regarding, the title, I think it should remain as is. It accurate reflects the issue, without sensationalizing it. Would people really be happier with an 'Abe was gay' kind of thing? Jdclevenger 15:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The debate and subject are notable. Controversial, sure, but clearly notable. This is not original research by any means. Georgewilliamherbert 04:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong and Obvious Keep — Notable subject that has been the study of academic investigation, unlike the "trivial" counter-examples cited. --Fastfission 21:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This subject has been documented ad naseum by presidential historians, and the Wikipedia article contains over a dozen sources last checked. Yamaguchi先生 09:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per The Bethling. bbx 21:49, 20 September 2006 (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.