Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality in music

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 delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality in music

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Text and sources are a patchwork, with no particular source talking about the main topic. The article violates WP:SYNTH, drawing unstated conclusions out of multiple sources. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article appears to be very superficial coverage of a topic that I would have expected that Wikipedia might already cover in other articles, although I'm not sure which articles those would be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this garbage. Trillfendi (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no main topic, these topics are irrelevant, and would need to be discussed by actual researchers or professionals to have any meaning. Naddruf (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep the article but it could be merged with the main Article about Music.Forest90 (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Gimubrc (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Unfinished article with no lead and empty sections. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This is an example of a clearly notable topic with a very poor article. The fact that an article is bad is not an actual reason for deletion, this is a topic with tons of coverage and I think it should have an article, but not this version of it.★Trekker (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2019 (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.