Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay exorcism

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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay exorcism

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

Neologism which seems to be sourced to a single incident. The exorcism is described as ridding the person of a "homosexual demon" -- not of homosexuality -- so is really just a "normal" exorcism. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator appears to have failed again to apply the guidance of WP:BEFORE. A simple Google search shows that exorcisms to stop people being gay is not a single recent incident, further cases now added. This is not a neologism, none of the words is original, this is not a newly coined phrase, it is a description of a topic. It is clear that if the article topic is a form of exorcism of a demon (the sources are mixed on whether the intent is to exorcise a demon or just change the person's orientation) then this of itself is not a reason to delete unless the topic is adequately covered by exorcism in which case an argument could be made for a merge. However the current topic of exorcism makes no mention of gay or homosexual exorcisms. Ash (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could seriously stand to be improved and is rather POVish, but there clearly are adequate RS'es which describe such a term. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and work on. It's a bit POVish and needs expansion - but these are issues that can be fixed without deleting the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Work already done on the article by Ash, primarily, has addressed any concerns I see being raised by the nominator. It's a noteworthy topic, and the article is clearly not about one single event. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Sorry, I find the assertion in the nomination that this term is a neologism -- based on a single incident -- hard to take seriously. Geo Swan (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Dennis The Tiger - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs much expansion, but deserves an articles. E2eamon (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - repulsive and weird but it has sources to show notability. Bearian (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ban Nominator - nomination rationale is non-sensical and obviously motivated by concerns other than the quality of Wikipedia. Stillwaterising (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2010 (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.