Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-heterosexual

Add links
Source: 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 after Benjiboi's rewrite.  Sandstein  18:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-heterosexual

Non-heterosexual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article is unsourced and basically almost impossible to expand beyond a dictionary definition. (Non-heterosexuals are people who are not heterosexual) NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Over 600 books, [1] articles,[2] and over 3000 scholar hits,[3] suggests much more than a dictionary definition is possible. That no one has spent the time to fix and expand this isn't that big of a surprise. It seems to be more of an academic term that a media buzzworthy one. Banjeboi 00:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Delete or possibly redirect. It's widely used because it's basic English. This is a dicdef. Change to weak delete based on substantial improvements but I still don't clearly see refs. about, rather than merely using, the term. JJL (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yes, there were some there but I've added a few more and reworked the lede a bit. Does this seem to cover this concern? Banjeboi 01:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or possibly merge to LGTB or Queer, if not Delete Change to Keep after re-write, the article is now properly sourced and expands beyond a mere dictionary definition, actually discussing the term. Worth expanding further, however, a merge still might be the best option. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Queer. Undeath (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:NAD. There are many google scholar hits for "non-human", "non-male", and "non-blonde", but it does not warrant us making articles that say "non-humans are all beings that are not human", "non-male are all humans who don't identify as male", or "non-blondes refer to all people who are not blonde", becase Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If the author wishes to categorize non-heterosexuals into a group for easy references, then he should create a category instead.-Samuel Tan 03:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - retracting strong delete because it has been shown that there are sources that make the subject more than analogous to a dictionary entry. I'm not familiar enough with the articles on sexuality to give a comment on a possible merger, though... -Samuel Tan 14:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LGBT. 'Queer' is something a little different to LGBT, but non-heterosexual is synonymous. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think I've addressed this in the article but LGBT, queer and non-heterosexual all seem to mean different things - although some certianly use them interchangably. Banjeboi 13:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Would be keep, except that this isn't an identifying term, simply an occasionally-used neologism to describe anyone who isn't straight. No one would identify themselves as "non-hetrosexual", since there are more specific terms out there. This article will not grow. Carson (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think I've addressed this in the article, it doesn't seem to be a neologism, at least not any more. Banjeboi 13:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete unless as it seems more sufficiently referenced (although there are now tonal things that I'd like to see changed those are more appropriately discussed on the articles talkpage). Please do not redirect to "queer" or "LBGT" as the term if reasonably verified would apply to "asexuals"(as mentioned in the article) and I'm sure there are others that aren't "hetero" but, aren't "homo" or "bi" either (the rare person that is only attracted to other species for instance). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to LGBT variants section. Keep I'm impressed with the way this article has been rescued by Benjiboi. Themfromspace (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Enough sources provided above which establish notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. FYI, The sexualities template has two references on it, which I think should be removed, and I have left a note on that template's talk page regarding the matter. Just a note when you see a couple odd items in the references. Banjeboi 10:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Article rewritten. Banjeboi 13:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per WP:HEY. The article is impeccably referenced, and the notability of the subject is beyond all reasonable doubt. The article should probably be merged to one of its synonyms, but that is outside the purview of Articles for Deletion. Skomorokh 16:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, merge is a possible outcome of an AfD, and there is at least one AfD in progress which is to confirm a disputed merge. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am aware of, and hostile to, the practice, thanks. Skomorokh 17:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to (or with, if you want to claim this term is better known than LGBT) LGBT#Variants. The references are OK, but many of them would fit just as well there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LGBT. Canjth (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can understand why editors !voted to redirect previous versions of the article, but how on earth can you justify removing from the encyclopedia extensive, thoroughly referenced content on an incontrovertibly notable topic?! Skomorokh 17:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which of those references is about non-homosexuality, as opposed to just using that term and then focusing on certain things that aren't heterosexual? I got 675 Google Book hits [4] on non-innovative and 97 hits [5] non-elephant. Are those notable terms, or just English constructions? I'm not convinced that there is a body of work about non-homosexuality in and of itself, studied by that name, as opposed books on various ways of not being heterosexual, described as 'non-homosexuality'. Finding a Journal of Non-Homosexuality Studies would be much more convincing than many refs. on lesbianism, and bisexualism, etc. JJL (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You misunderstand; I'm not arguing that the subject (i.e. the concept, not the term) is independently notable, but that the material in the article is well-sourced and relevant, wherever it ends up. To redirect rather than merge would be to lose all the quality content. Sincerely, Skomorokh 19:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Non-heterosexual is not the same as LGBT or queer, I think the article has made that clear but certainly could use more clarity if not. Banjeboi 21:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this discusses the concept, not merely defines it. DGG (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article reads like a cross between a definition and an overview of all non-hetero behaviors, with a bit of righteous jsutification in there. The overview parts as so obvious as to be common sense, and are covered in the relevant articles. Redirecting will no doubt result inm an edit war about which non-hetero article it should point to. if it absolutely must redirect, then to Human Sexuality. Given the breadth of that article, most people searchign for this odd phrase will find what they need there. ThuranX (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. That the article about a term includes a term's definition seems fine, could you elaborate what "non-hetero behaviors" are discussed or even overviewed? Also I'm interested in correcting any "righteous justification" - frankly I was using what the sources stated so maybe quoting them would be better? The term's acceptance and widespread use in academia would suggest it be directed to the present article. Banjeboi 00:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Benjiboi has made huge improvements to this article, and it's now clearly notable. Early votes should be ignored unless reaffirmed, because they aren't commenting on anything like the current article. LWizard @ 03:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The hell they shouldn't. What kind of nonsense is that? editor input shouldn't count unless it matches your POV? Editor comments and arguments count fully, there's no need for constant monitoring of every place an editor gives input, nothign would be achieved that way. ThuranX (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The third way: As a closer I personally pay attention to the order of the comments, e.g. if the first five all say "no sources" and then the sixth says "sources added." But I really don't need someone to tell me to consider this... - brenneman 04:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I always watch the page and follow the ensuing discussion, but if sources added don't change my opinion, I don't always re-post my vote. I'd hate to think I was doing that and being ignored! JJL (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually LizardWizard is correct. This is a debate, and that means a continued discussion and interchange of arguments as the debate progresses and dynamically changes. Otherwise, the !votes are not much more than drive by votes. There is precedent to discount !votes that are clearly ignoring the improvements that address the nomination rationale. WP:AFD states: If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin. If someone !votes in an AfD, they have a ethical responsibility to follow up, since it's not a static votes for deletion process. Several editors have changed their position due to the massive improvements, and that's very commendable. — Becksguy (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as verifiable. user:Everyme 13:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, all the deletes are based on personal dislikes.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nonsense, and even if it were true (which it isn't), it's not the form any argument should ever take in any discussion. user:Everyme 10:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fine, keep because it is well referenced, has just as much as the Sexual orientation article. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. user:Everyme 11:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so merge it there, then. (This is a moderately serious suggestion, in spite of the rest of this subthread.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, then while were at it, lets merge the United States, Mexico, and all the countries on the earth into one article too. And hey, why stop there, lets merge all the articles on wikipedia into on super article.... cause based on your logic, that seems where you want to go with it. Merging articles is one of the worst things you can do to a great article. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. It makes as much sense as having a Non-homosexuals article. Skoojal (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But does it? In our normative culture, heterosexuality is seen and propagated as the "normal", and sadly often enough as the "correct" orientation. It's therefore more legitimate than with any other orientation, and that's also why it is very frequently done, to analyse and discuss any orientation which derivates from this "cultural norm". So it makes a lot more sense than a "Non-homosexuals" article. user:Everyme 11:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Non-homosexual" is a bit more borderline as is "non-bisexual" although both might be valid subheadings here. Of all the terms Non-heterosexual seems to have the most usage, I stopped at 30-40 books but there were dozens more that also addressed this material. Non-homosexual and non-bisexual both had mentions but they were definitely used far less although in similar contexts of explaning one group verses all others outside the group. Banjeboi 00:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the reasons presented in the original nomination have been addressed and are no longer valid. The current version of the article appears thoroughly sourced and fully meeting WP:V and WP:N. It is a sociological concept (although perhaps not widely in use as other concepts) and not simply a "dictionary definition" as many of the delete opinions claim.-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Note that the article has been significantly expanded since this article was nominated for deletion, with sources added. The term is not strictly equivalent to LGBT - in that that includes transgender, but does not include sexualities other than bi/gay. Mdwh (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep due to the massive improvements by Benjiboi that I believe have more than adequately addressed the nomination rationale. Here is the article when it was nominated for AfD (32 words), and here is the article now (707 words). It has 29 references, many of them scholarly ones, and is now very clearly much more than just a definition. Over 600 books, articles, and over 3000 scholar hits, as indicated by Benjiboi. This is one of the best examples for WP:HEY I have seen. — Becksguy (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Queer or LGBT. Yes, you will see this term used, because it is the correct term for people who are not heterosexual. That does not mean that non-heterosexuality is on its own a notable phenomenon. According to this article, it's not even trying to talk about people who aren't heterosexual: "Non-heterosexual is also used to encompass transgender and intersex people, although these are gender identities rather than sexual identities they are a part of the LGBT and queer umbrella communities." --Alynna (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. As stated in the article, and above, this term is distinct from and different than both LGBT and queer and it came into use to replace those terms and others specifically to address those distinctions. Banjeboi 18:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Benjiboi. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Non-heterosexual&oldid=1191416589"