Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heterosexual-homosexual continuum

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heterosexual-homosexual continuum

This page is a POV-fork that tries to expand the the definition of sexual orientation to include 'Non Heterosexual-homosexual continuum sexual orientations'. it was established as part of an attempt to create original research on Template:sexual orientation Ludwigs2 20:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has reliable sources and interesting information. Don't attack me just because I like my articles interesting! Tezkag72 (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The present sketchy article needs expansion, but dos not strike me as a pov fork, but a start to either a pemissible alternative mannr of presenting the topic, or else a discussion of the specific concept, depending on how it gets developed. . DGG (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this WP:OR. Sourced from someone's essays on their own university user space. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the references, there are others, and deleting an article based on one ref is wrong, especially when there are others referencing the same quote. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a bit short, but it's a new stub article. References are provided. A POV fork of what article? Admittedly it seems odd that at least half the article focuses on what doesn't come under the topic, but (a) this would improve as more is added to the article, and (b) if it's really a problem, then it's just that content that should be removed, not the article as a whole. Mdwh (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification (per comments given above): the first section of this article is a direct quote from the APA, here, in paragraph 2. the second section is entirely original research, appearing nowhere that I can find in the psychological literature. it may in fact be the case that the first section is sufficiently notable to have an article of its own; I just want to make sure that issue is clear. --Ludwigs2 19:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which bit is quoted from that article? I can't see how it matches up. Mdwh (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a good start but obviously needs much more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.64.207 (talk) 06:48, 28 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.