Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ex-ex-gay

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 no consensus. The no consensus here refers to the keep and merge discussion, there is clearly no support for using the deletion tool. Merge discussions should continue on the talk page. Courcelles 21:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-ex-gay

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simple WP:CFORK from Ex-gay movement#People who no longer support the ex-gay movement. We should delete this article and move to the ex-gay subsection any information that's here but not in the subsection, and redirect this to the subsection. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable page. --Cox wasan (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's just not notable? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Roscelese makes a good point. We are obliged to give reasons for why we think an article is not sufficiently notable. Just saying "not notable" is not enough if we want our vote to count. Deterence ^Talk 13:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ex-gay movement#People who no longer support the ex-gay movement. Not notable enough for its own page. -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yet another POINTy nomination by a user bitter about the deletion of "List of ex-gay people." Topic has been covered in source after source (eg. [1], [2], [3]); notability is clearly demonstrated. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, ever heard of WP:AGF? I didn't even know the article existed until today, and it's a clear content fork. I'm not saying we delete it altogether, I'm saying it's covered at Ex-gay movement and doesn't need its own article. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Retaliatory nomination in respose to recent deletions to make a WP:POINT. Nominator has recently filed another retaliatory AfD: [[4]]. Extremely well sourced and conforms with BLP. Also conforms with WP:CFORK. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be substantial enough to have its own article. --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from it being very well-referenced, AfD noms that are motivated by political agendas or retaliation, (see comment by User:Dominus Vobisdu above), just piss me off. Deterence ^Talk 23:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Biased POV nonsense. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About a third of the prose content describes the ex-gay movement, and the list of people appears to be largely duplicated. The content is related to Ex-gay movement. I see little reason, aside from POV to-and-froing, not to merge the content to that article, with the usual redirect. (I note that a merged article will be borderline in terms of WP:SIZERULE, but I think the substantial use of list format makes the article readable at that size.) Cnilep (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Ex-gay movement. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic covered in multiple reliable sources, including:
- books: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]
- News articles:[19][20][21]
- Magazines:[22][23][24][25][26][27]
- And, I would like to adress "arguments" given for deletion and merging, my comments are between "()":
  - User:Cox wasan:Not a notable page (Statement not argument).
  - User:Conservative Philosopher:Biased POV nonsense (Statement not argument).
  - User:Stuartyeates:merge to Ex-gay movement (This isn't even a stetement, this is JUSTAVOTE)
  - User:Marek69:Not notable enough for its own page (Again statement not argument)
- And response to User:Cnilep (The only user who gave an argument for merging or deletion): Of course that Article Ex-ex-gay must adress Ex-gay movement, because of meaning of the term Ex-ex-gay. Just like Ex-gay movement or Ex-gay is related to Gay and Gay rights movement, but that doesn't mean that we should merge Ex-gay movement to Gay rights movement or sometning.--В и к и T 10:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in the source you have for suggesting that I'm claiming my !vote was an argument. Either provide a source or stop misrepresenting me please. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuartyeates, what kind of "source" could be needed? User:Wikiwind (ВukuT) merely responded to your vote by pointing out what is obvious to anyone looking at this page - your vote violated WP:JUSTAVOTE due to your failure to provide reasons for your vote. If anything, you are the one doing the "misrepresenting". Deterence ^Talk 06:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISCUSSAFD states:The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments.--В и к и T 06:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ex-gay movement. The topic currently seems inextricably linked to the extent of being a subtopic. Although it is indeed notable and well sourced, the length and nature of the article as it stands doesn't as yet warrant a separate page rather than a section on the ex-gay page. Alternatively, a significant expansion with well sourced information about ex-ex-gay people or the movement (counter-movement?) which would render it too long to be a section would do the trick. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge - with all the ex-gay crap. The article is clearly a section of a larger whole, and makes little sense outside of the whole ex-gay thing. Also, a potential blp-nightmare, so whatever anyone does, please be careful and midful of blp issues. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect While there is, in my view, sufficient notability and sufficient material to justify a "keep", the current presentation approaches being a POV fork, and I believe that a neutral exposition of the topics would be best served by a consolidated article. (As an aside: I feel we often go too far out of our way to avoid merging topics whose exposition would be more cleanly handled in a single article, I'm a bit of a mergist.) As with Dr. Marcus, I'd likely change my view to keep if the article were significantly larger, at some point the parent article would simply be too large, butI don't see that we've yet reached that point. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:11, 22 September 2011 (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.