Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Adolf Hitler

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 of the debate was no consensus, no consensus, no consensus. Mailer Diablo 10:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality of Adolf Hitler

This article is pure speculation and none of the information present can be confirmed. I vote to Delete OSU80 04:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Both the original speculation and objections to that speculation are authoritative and well-documented in this article. It's well-balanced, and it's a topic of interest. Why not? Deco 04:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Speaking as the person who added four references to the first paragraph of the article (and meant to go back and work on the rest but... didn't), I'm curious as to what is meant by "none of the information present can be confirmed". Hitler's sexuality is, like most things surrounding Hitler, a subject of interest, and if we are able to discuss it objectively and with reference to reliable sources, I think we should. —Seqsea (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Even though this article needs work, it should be improved rather than being deleted. There has been a long standing interest and a number of inquiries into this aspect of Hitler's life by even mainstream historical biographers. The topic was even covered in my high school history classes in the late 60s. Normally I would want this type of thing covered in the main biography but that article is already rather long and has already spawned a Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler due, in part to space considerations. Ande B 06:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note This is the third AfD for this article since March 1. Article was retitled on March 24. Both AfDs were closed as No Consensus. AfDs were:
I doubt the result is going to change. Fan1967 04:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Legitimate topic, seems to reference reliable sources. Could probably use some attention from an expert, though.Cheapestcostavoider 06:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Seqsea, the nomination is pretty incoherent in respect to that and also in that it's the third within a span of less than two months! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep good article, needs work -Doc ask? 12:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep has long been a subject of popular discussions and speculation, information seems to come referenced sources. I also have a problem (but not a big one) with it being the 3rd AfD in 2 months and latest 2 nominations coming from the same user (Mmeinhart is the old account of OSU80).--blue520 13:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, what's so bad about the article after all? It just needs some work and cleanup, its a good topic for an encyclopedia. --Terence Ong 14:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep speculation that is published is A OK. Kotepho 18:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment if I was gonna vote it'd be to delete, but given the way this looks like going, it'd be pointless. However, who the hell cares about Hitlers sexuality, and what cant be said in his own article about it, that it needs a seperate article all to itself?! The guy was probably a repressed homosexual, or at least bisexual. Big deal. Jcuk 21:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep pending good references ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment en·cy·clo·pe·di·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-skl-pd-) n. A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically. OSU80 22:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The discussion is real, and we can report the facts about the discussion of Hitler's sexuality, thus providing information for reference for those interesteed in the debate/controversy/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. (Keep, if it wasn't obvious.) —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 16 April 2006 @ 05:38 (UTC)
      • The article isnt called The debate on Adolf Hitler's sexuality, it's called Sexuality of Adolf Hitler. OSU80 01:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with the Adolf Hitler article. Jesustrashcan 10:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is referenced and Adolf Hitler is notable enough to warrant subsidiary articles. It has long been a subject that has been discussed. Capitalistroadster 01:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, as the article is now in better shape than last time, but it still needs more references. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It has non-original research related to it. History is not quite as verifiable process as the nom seems to think it is. We have to rely on people commenting. Keep also because it is an interesting topic that people may want to look at an encyclopedia to find information on. Ansell 01:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-encyclopedic. Could merge as a brief a paragraph in main bio. This certainly doesn't warrant its own article. Rklawton 01:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Why did you vote delete, and then explain that it could be merged? How close were you to voting merge? Ansell 02:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability of subject can hardly be questioned (pretty much every aspect of this man's life is likely to be notable). Article itself could do with touching up but is certainly not amongst the worst I've ever seen. Surprised to see that this page has been nominated on AfD 3 times in the past 6 weeks (presumably as an exercise in order to spur interested parties into working on the page?)- in terms of the subject matter at least, I don't see why this should be deleted, given the space constraints described above. Hidden Fuhrer: Debating the Enigma of Hitler's Sexuality should/could probably be merged into this page however. Badgerpatrol 02:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Badgerpatrol nailed it. The only reason I relisted this article for a third time was because I'd hate to see some 15 year old kid writing a paper about Adolf Hitler, after all I'm sure there are millions of them out there, only to include in his paper that Adolf Hitler was indeed a homosexual. Even a merge with the main page would be more constructive than having it's own page. There are missing citations all over the page. OSU80 02:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. My thoughts on this don't change: Unnverifiable pov fork. The topic is certainly borderline unencyclopedic, especially existing as its own article. If the content could be verified with reliable sources, I would suggest merging. This sets a very bad precedent for allowing every crackpot conspiracy bullshit to be treated with credulity. I'd like to think Wikipedia is better than this. -- Krash (Talk) 03:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    Please remember the civility policy. Ansell 04:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    I see nothing uncivil about calling a spade a spade. If anyone wishes to continue to red herring, my talk page is waiting. -- Krash (Talk) 01:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Adolf Hitler's medical health, specifically the Mental health and sexual inclinations section MLA 08:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Keep or Merge. anyway sounds good to me.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems like a potentially good article, could do with a bit of a tidy and POV purge but it has some well referenced information in it. People must remember that just because a subject is sensitive does not instantly make it POV. But as I said, needs work. Maybe a peer review would be advantageous Localzuk (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Judging from the What links here, the content is badly integrated into the rest of the encyclopedia. This segregation may be the result of a lack of neutrality, or any POV in this article would develop because of its segregation. Not good either way. Femto 11:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Half the sentences seemed to have following them something like 'but this was unsubstantiated gossip.' The article seems pointless. Who cares about random accusations? MaxMangel 14:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hard to verify, POV speculation. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hard to verify, POV speculation. Read also [1] about Strong feminine-masochistic tendency of the German people and [2] note about Otto Strasser. And at the end think about OSS - The Psychology of War [3]. The sources are not reliable enough. --MaNeMeBasat 16:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Do people not know what "no consensus" means? It means that the administrator can't take any action. Users can do whatever the heck they want, and so I merged the article. The fact that there was no consensus to delete is not a reason for unmerging. Gazpacho 18:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
It is OK to merge this, after discussion on the talk page, but only after this vote is concluded. We don't generally merge during a vote, as it prevents people seeing what the vote was really about. --Doc ask? 08:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm referring to my merge shortly after the second afd. It was reverted with no reason other than "no consensus". Gazpacho 22:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, just make sure every sentence is cited.—thames 16:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Move this information somewhere else - having a separate article for this gives a large emphasis on one small facet of one's life and is POV. This applies for all the others that have had a similar thing. It is not a large part of their life, unlike, eg, Dana International. Would it be acceptable if there was an article Drinking habits of Pope Benedict XVI? because he drinks wine during religious ceremonies?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
If there had been reputable sources speculating on the drinking habits of the Pope - then yes, that would be a valid article. But there aren't. There is however a verifiable debate on the sexuality of Hitler (not just 'was he gay?' but was he impotent, and how might we understand his sexual psychology). The 'facts' may be POV, but the fact that there is a debate can be verified and reported. Here's a review of a notable book on the subject [4] which was reviewed in Britians leading History journal History Today and caused them to put a fascinating picture of the Fuhrer in Lederhosen on its front cover [5] with the title 'Hitler's Secret'. --Doc ask? 08:30, 20 April 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.