Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticisms of sexual behavior

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 delete, discounting Bichufo's comment. Flower party■ 00:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of sexual behavior

Consensus on the article's talk page is that this article is very, very bad. Currently, it almost entirely a pro-homosexuality soapbox article - it doesn't even describe the criticisms of homosexual and bisexual behavior before it starts "debunking" them, but it doesn't "debunk" any of the criticisms of heterosexual behavior listed. Many comments have been made about this on the talk page and the article has not improved. I have considered improving it myself, but when I tried to fashion a plan for improvement, I came up with the following (posted on the article talk page):

"Also, the gender of one's sexual partner(s) is far from the only basis on which one's sexual behavior can be criticized. To have a complete article on this topic requires that we include documentable criticisms of behaviors such as premarital sex, non-reproductive sex, casual sex, adultery, masturbation, prostitution, oral sex, anal sex, BDSM, bestiality, incest, pedophilia, other age-disparate relationships, exhibitionism, voyeurism, rape, polygamy, polyamory, swinging, sex toy use, sexual fetishism... and the list goes on, I'm sure. Now that I've put together this list, I am becoming increasingly doubtful that this is a useful article title for Wikipedia. Maybe it could work if we divided it up into sections according to the grounds of the criticism (religious doctrine, physicial harm... I don't know what the categories would be exactly) rather than the behavior being criticized. As it stands, I'd rather that the sections currently in the article be subsumed back into homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality, or human sexual behavior as appropriate. I'm almost thinking this should be nominated for deletion, as I'm not sure whether the article could ever be more than an incoherent assemblage of POVs. Of course, this is Wikipedia, so maybe someone will come along and edit it and prove me wrong."

As it hasn't been improved, I am nominating it for deletion in the hopes that it will either get fixed up or die. AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom WP:NOT, though I don't see it as pro-homosexual or pro-anything - it's too much of a mess. You perhaps could have tried an RFC, don't know if there's reason to make one while there's an AfD now. But it is very unsourced, and has not been attracting editors making the necessary changes. Nom doesn't mention criticisms of abstinence, monogamy, reproductive, marital, and "vanilla sex" and who knows what else besides (everybody's a critic). It would have to be all or nothing, and it's got to be cited responsibly, and that would be a practically Kinseyian undertaking. I don't see any content worth merging into other articles, though the topics could possibly be addressed in other articles—starting from scratch (though I suspect most of them already contain criticisms). Esquizombi 19:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how it's fixable. Inherently OR and POV, unless expanded to book length to cover all viewpoints. And quite frankly, it's so badly written that you'd have to blank the whole thing and start from scratch. Fan1967 20:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Riddled with POV. Unsourced. And is there any reason to have a separate article on criticisms? Better placed under discussions of each type of behaviour. Slowmover 21:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOV violation. Unencyclopædic in tone and content. If sexual practises require criticism it would be better to source such opinions, provide citations for follow-up research and place content on the respective articles' pages. (aeropagitica) 22:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did consider nominating this for AfD myself, but was waiting to see if it could be improved- it hasn't been. I suspect it will always be hopelessly POV. Much more chance of NPOV by discussing any relevant criticisms on relevant article pages (per aeropagitica). Petros471 22:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep it may look like this article is irreparable, but it has enough content and enough potential to not merit deletion. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that it is unsourced (one of the few articles here still unsourced, probably) and that it needs more work, but I fail to see why it is "inherently POV". Because it covers statements that themselves are obviously pov? I hope that is not what you mean. It may be that the title needs changing - the original idea was that it would cover criticisms of the three major orientations, and then it seemed appropriate to mentions criticisms that were more general. I could see including criticisms of autosexuality, etc. It is extremely valuable to see what kind of criticisms have been leveled at sexual behavior over the ages, because it contextualizes the ones in use now. Why would you want to get rid of this kind of coverage??? And the thing about being pro-gay. What?! What's pro or anti anything about it, unless some stuff has been put in since last I looked at it, and then it can be taken out. This whole effort to get rid of this material makes no sense to me. Haiduc 03:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm just not buying that this is the way to organize this type of information. We have articles on homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality, etc. Collating into one article what should be the "criticisms" section of each of those seems somehow wanton. It seems like begging for a POV minefield, frankly. Calling this an encyclopedia article is like calling Crossfire a documentary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Beyond repair. Pavel Vozenilek 14:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't share analysis of nominator, but whatever this is, it's not an encyclopaedia article. David | Talk 14:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But only the general section, which should be divided according to the post sited at the top of this page. Usually a phenomenon and the its criticism are dealt with in the same article, but if that would be too long than you can break it up (like pornography and anti-pornography movement). This page would generally contain the criticism to most of the things discussed at human sexual behavior. —This unsigned comment was added by Jonathan Shafer (talk • contribs) .
Keep. Definitely these criticisms exist. It makes sense to have a central article about them. horseboy 18:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ENC. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Stifle 00:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of it. If you delete this then also delete all pro-gay articles, of which there is an abundance here. 2006.03.14. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bichufo (talk • contribs)
Delete. WP should not be used as a soapbox San Saba 18:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.