Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Hitler's sexual orientation (2nd nomination)

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 to delete. W.marsh 00:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler's sexual orientation (second nomination)

Please see the results of this articles first nomination [1] for further details. I nominate this article for deletion on the grounds that it is an attack page. This article lacks valuable sources and was created by a member who has vandalised Wikipedia many times before. see Grazon for futher information on the articles creator. Delete --Mmeinhart 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral --Go for it! -- Too soon for another AfD --Go for it! 00:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpeedyKeep. Too recently closed for another AfD to be even considered. Wait a little while, ~~duke~~ talk it out on the Talk page (it's what it's there for), and then decide from there. AfDs are supposed to be for housing and inciting debate, with the reccomendation being the outcome. If you feel it should be merged, discuss it! If there is still an issue, re-AfD it; this isn't the right place (this is). -Mys e kurity 00:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Wikipedia is not inherently an attack page, per AfD for that boy scout dude. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't delete, then merge with extreme prejudice. Is this all anyone could come up with? Hitler supposedly was impotent; we already have an article about that. He was possibly of Jewish descent... and these are supposed to indicate what, exactly? Gazpacho 03:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Rumors about Adolf Hitler's sexuality because that's what the content is. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 05:11Z

Merge with the biography only the verifiable facts. Otherwise, the "fact" that there exists a rumor deserves only one line. Rklawton 05:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main Adolf Hitler page - there is not much real content here... Localzuk ^(talk) 17:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Adolph Hitler not worthy of a seperate page. Ckessler 17:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable claims trying to get one media attention do not constitute serious encyclopedic article. Pavel Vozenilek 14:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight Merge to Adolf Hitler's medical health or Adolf Hitler. To be honest, it's mostly rumours, unverifiable, and original research. Stifle 01:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Previous AfD closed last week. Hence too soon to renom and particularly for the absurd reason given. This is a valid topic that is discussed by Hitler historians. Many of the ideas are drawn from Rosenbaum's book where much space is devoted to theories of Hitler's sexuality. Why that makes certain people uncomfortable to the point where they consider it an attack on Hitler is beyond my comprehension. -- JJay 02:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the biography only the verifiable facts which are uncontested by the historic community. Otherwise, the "fact" that there exists a rumor deserves only one line. Agathoclea 21:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable claims --MaNeMeBasat 07:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the moment, the article lacks verifiable sources. That would need to be fixed for the article to be kept or merged. Capitalistroadster 16:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. It's unverifyable gossip, attempted to be verified with further gossip. Articles about the sexual orientation of historic figures are not really encyclopedic, except maybe if that orientation was central to their identity as a historic figure, which it certainly isn't for Adolf Hitler. If a Delete is not possible, then a merge of maybe a sentence or two that could be salvaged into his biography mentioning that there has been speculation about his orientation. --Wingsandsword 17:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can find anything that passes the reliable source test and adds it to the article, then merge it. Otherwise, it should be deleted. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 19:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I want to delete per the first nom, especially if the content comes from other parts of wikipedia; however it just closed!!! Give it some time. We can't play nom an article till i get my way. Mike _{(T C)} 20:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with major cleanup. As is stated on the talk page if hitler's vegetarianism gets its own article, this shouldn't be merged. There have always been rumors about hitler's sexuality, so, if someone can come up with neutral, verifiable content, it definitely belongs on Wikipedia in its own article. Cool3 21:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup & merge I really don't think this deserves its own article, unless some major evidence on this topic suddenly appears. Chairman S. ^Talk 01:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as before.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources. jafmuse 19:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMUltiple books have been written about this topic so it has a place here. grazon 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. 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) 01:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Merging it into another article will make the article too long. Best kept as seperate article --161.74.11.24 16:23, 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.