Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queer theology

:{{la|Queer theology}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Queer_theology Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Queer theology}})

This is a procedural nomination. An IP editor redirected the article to Marcella Althaus-Reid with the rationale, "term used by only one author, this "field" simply does not exist and is hence not notable". I reverted, but started this discussion. I am not actually advocating deletion or keeping at this time. LadyofShalott 16:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• In light of my Googe Books search, some of which I have listed in a further reading section, I now say strong keep; this subject is notable. LadyofShalott 17:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Since a basic Google Books search turns up at least a half-dozen books by different authors with the exact phrase "queer theology" as part of their titles,[https://books.google.com/books?id=RNsGVt_LqiEC][https://books.google.com/books?id=1tR6D1nhzwAC][https://books.google.com/books?id=iV7nKreIHWAC][https://books.google.com/books?id=JH7hAgAAQBAJ][https://books.google.com/books?id=fNXDnQEACAAJ][https://books.google.com/books?id=I7M-QwAACAAJ], and Google Scholar yields 666 hits for the phrase, the "used by only one author" contention falls flat. This certainly appears to be a legitimate subject for an article, unless it's already subsumed in a broader related topic like LGBT and religion topics or one of the subtopics listed there. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Clear keep. While I wouldn't go off the search results alone, as the sources would need to be reliable, it is clear that the topic is notable and discussed in reliable sources. Synonyms like "gay theology" are also used. Article needs improvement, but that's not a reason to delete. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per IP. HesioneHushabye (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

::Given that numerous other authors have been shown to discuss this (some at least with academic publishers), can you please elaborate? Are they all bunkum in your opinion? LadyofShalott 00:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

:::Yes, they are. 58.7.138.46 (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per sources cited by Arxiloxos. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy keep no statement by AfD postert or indication of topic not being notable, and IP editors vandalize articles all the time, their actions should not demand discussions, but should be reverted and ignored. MicroPaLeo (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect to LGBT and religion topics. This topic simply does not exist as a field of study, it's just queer people doing theology – should we have articles on queer biology, queer philosophy, queer logic, queer metaphysics? No of course not, and this should be no exception. Read the article, it says nothing about the topic actually existing, it's just queer authors inventing a term to be edgy and try and get themselves funding by making up their own "specialisations". If someone could provide me a definition of "queer theology" that isn't just a restatement of the term, I'd be amazed. Those arguing to keep this page as is and not redirect need to demonstrate what it is that differentiates this page from LGBT and religion topics. 58.7.138.46 (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Subject is clearly notable as a specific form of theology, as reliable sources show. Also, one of the top theology institutes in the world, Harvard Divinity School, offers a course on it - [http://div.hds.harvard.edu/academics/courses/course-detail.cfm?CrsNumber=2709§ion=01&term=Fall&year=2014]. This one is pretty obvious. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

: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.