Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex integration and homosexuality

:{{la|Sex integration and homosexuality}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Sex integration and homosexuality}})

• another one of a long series of unnecessary articles duplicating existing encyclopedia content, and from an implied POV. It is much better to add content to the actual articles on the individual concepts. As it stands, its Synthesis, an excuse for writing an essay. . DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a grab bag of information that does not add up to a topic. Sexuality in prison populations is not the same as sexuality among non-prison populations no matter their segregation by sex. Saudi Arabian sexuality is not the same as prison sexuality. Some of the material can be reworded so that it makes sense, and brought to other more coherent articles such as Sexual orientation and the United States military, Prison sexuality, LGBT people in prison, or LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia. Delete this article. Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Synthesis at best, OR at worst. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. A clear case of Original Synthesis, agreggating various sources none of which is dealing with this specific subject. --Azurfrog (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Most of this is actually about sex segregation and homosexuality, anyway. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep
• I am the article's creator and a substantial contributor.
• WP:SYN states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research."
• The reliable source Sadler directly connects 'homosexuality' and 'sex integration',
• McGowan directly connects 'sex integration' with sex segregated 'prisons',
• Albov directly connects situationally evoked 'homosexuality' with 'prisons',
• Sadler directly connects situationally evoked 'sex integration' with the 'military',
• Money directly connects situationally evoked 'homosexuality' with 'sex offenders', and
• Cooper directly connects situationally evoked 'heterosexuality' with the 'military'. This by Wikipedia definition is NOT synthesis.
• The key word in this article is forced, whether it is forced sex segregation, sex integration, homosexuality, or heterosexuality. Suggestions on a better title are always welcome.
• Sadler, Cooper, MacKinnon, McGowan, Labi and Albov only occur here, Money is also in Occupational sex segregation, and Whatley also occurs in Sex integration. The authors are referenced in the other articles because the other article also addresses an issue that accompanies or is associated with that respective article. Marshallsumter (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• The material presented here does not stand on its own. Rather, it is an aspect of sex integration and occupational sex segregation, plus a little bit of Saudi or Islamic sex segregation. The material would be put to better use broadening the articles about sex integration, etc. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Substantial material has been added since the above. Marshallsumter (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• You added more of the same grab bag of dissociated studies which do not prove your thesis. For example, you state in the lead section that forced sex integration in the military can turn a homosexual into a heterosexual, which is baloney. No part of the article supports this. Delete. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• You are applying a double standard that neither I nor the article are. Marshallsumter (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2011 (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.