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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Same-sex attraction

Same-sex attraction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

(Find sources: "Same-sex attraction" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Several articles already discuss this topic, that is sexual orientation and homosexuality Linestarz (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. An overlap in subject matter is an argument for an article merge, not deletion. This article appears to be adequately referenced. -- Eastmain (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I wanted to say delete first, because I couldn't see the difference between this and homosexuality. Reading into it, looks like this is specifically the attraction to someone of the same gender identity, rather than the same gender (read the first lines of the two articles). Is this accurate? I'm open to anyone else with more knowledge of the specifics of these terms, but that's what I'm getting. Jujutacular ^T · C 08:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 08:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete. If the nominator considers it an unwarranted content fork it's a valid topic for a deletion discussion. The references have examples of the term being used, but I'm not convinced they support the article's assertion of it being used to describe same-sex attraction as a discrete phenomenon. Cassandra 73 (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Same-sex attraction and homosexuality are different. To explain it better, although one is inherently same-sex attracted if one is homosexual, one can be something other than homosexual and still be same-sex attracted (bi, curious/questioning, whatever). It is a term which finds its way into the lexicon through primarily the social sciences. I have no opinion on whether to delete or keep (mainly as I can't be bothered reading either article to see if the content justifies a separate article for SSA) but I hope my explanation helps clarify things for those who do :) Orderinchaos 15:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete purely dicdef to make sure that the hypertechnical never mistake attraction with orientation with identity or anything else. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to sexual orientation. The proposed distinction between attraction and orientation is uncited, and seems to be intended as a distinction between attraction and identity. Also, the term does not appear to be used enough to write more than a dicdef about it. --Alynna (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jayron32 02:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to sexual orientation, per Alynna. Anna Lincoln 21:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• keep or merge I dont understand why the nominator didn't merge this in the first place. Ikip (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to sexual orientation, if sources added there, then maybe an article would be warranted, but at the moment it seems arbitary.YobMod 18:21, 9 November 2009 (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.