Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church views of sexuality

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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Even in spite of the few delete votes, there are enough keeps and enough solid reason to close this on the side of keep under Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unification Church views of sexuality

Not really a notable topic. It has not been covered in any serious way by reliable sources. The basic information is already given in other articles on the Unification Church and its beliefs. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reliably non-UC sources. Should further sources appear, any writeup on this subject can be accommodated in more general UC articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: on the basis of significant coverage in newly-added sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly redirect to Unification Church#Celibacy and marriage; but I find it hard to believe that the borrowing, and inversion, from Plato's Symposium has gone completely unnoticed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Rev. Moon read Plato in school. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, there is a problem with using Rev. Moon's speeches as a source. There are thousands of pages of them recorded and many things he says are meant as jokes or said to challenge his listeners. There is nothing special about this quote which would compell anyone to comment on it. And of course it shouldn't be taken literally. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the quote certainly doesn't sound like it was meant to be a formal statement of doctrine -- and is thus perhaps inappropriate for inclusion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it from a speech? The citation gives the impression it's from a book. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Make mine merge. That puts it beyond AfD's purview; but I think these added sources belong in Unification Church, not here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I would have no objections to a merge, except for the {{Religion and homosexuality}} issue. Is it genuinely workable to link one section of an article into that template? Regardless, I also have no problem with putting the newly added sources into the main UC article per summary style, either. Jclemens (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problem. Put the template in that section, and make the link in the template [[Unification Church#Celibacy and marriage|Unification Church]]. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for three separate reasons:
1. Its inclusion in the {{Religion and homosexuality}} series--its absence would not serve an encyclopedic purpose.
2. Primary sources are perfectly fine for religious beliefs, per WP:SPS.
3. Sources exist which seem to be candidates for inclusion, such as religoustolerance.org, weeklystandard.com, Washington Post (albeit tangential), as well as several other non-freely available articles listed in Google News. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On primary sources: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (WP:V) On "candidate sources": religoustolerance.org is not a WP:RS, the WP article makes no direct connection between homosexuality & the UC, the only direct connection the WS drwas is this quoted question: "Fisher: Do you believe, as the Unification Church teaches, that homosexuality, that homosexuals are dung-eating dogs?" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 23:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems like an unnecessary fork to me. Social/political views of a religion should be dealt with in the primary article on that religion if they merit inclusion anywhere. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tons of sources on it "unification church" sexuality at gbooks. at gscholar. Perhaps a name change to UC and sexuality.John Z (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough substance to warrant what appears to be an unnecessary fork. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I nominated it for deletion I was aware that it was originally created as a part of the Homosexuality and religion series. Then it got merged with another article and the information about homosexuality was removed. I don't think an article should be kept just because it is part of a series.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Well, I've been adding the bits about UC disapproval of other-than-heterosexual-married-sex and AIDS back in, with sources, because it seemed like an appropriate part of a religion-and-sexuality article that was missing. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Unification Church views of homosexuality is certainly been documented so it would be easy enough to address those specifically; that it doesn't allow openly LGBT people to join, lesbians and gays explicitly, bisexual and transgender people by implication; that members who are found to be LGBT are shunned or subject to spiritual violence; that same-sex unions are not performed, etc. There has also been some related controversies dealing with people with AIDS along the same manner of theology that evolved from seeing AIDS as a gay disease - I believe later revised to as a simply a mark of sinful lifestyle. The lede should also be a bit more NPOV and expanded. -- Banjeboi 07:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a bit more complicated than that, as these kind of things usually are. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources added that establish notability. Europe22 (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Absolutely a notable topic. --Alynna (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Since the article has been improved by added cited info I would like to withdraw the nomination for deletion. Thanks guys. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:52, 29 December 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.