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 speedy keep under the snowball clause. This does not preclude an editorial merge discussion. lifebaka++ 15:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in Benin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Barely notable, no secondary sources. Vanity topic can be covered in LGBT rights in Africa. Aurush kazemini^talk 19:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A new article that addresses the topic, certainly not a "Vanity topic" in the scope of LGBT rights across the African continent and around the world. If there is a genuine interest in merging this elsewhere, that should have been handled by proposing a merge on the article's talk page. Alansohn (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Human rights in Africa unless some real sources can be added (and an actual intro wouldn't hurt either). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. "Barely notable"?! "Vanity topic"?! Don't be ridiculous, Benin is a country of 8.5m people. Having LGBT articles on each country seems to be both established practice and sensible. the wub "?!" 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's just there for the sake of being there, the topic may be reasonably important, but the article is flaccid at best Aurush kazemini^talk 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As I understand it, when considering deletion we should weigh up an article's potential worthiness for inclusion, not just its current quality. It suffers a little from dearth of readily-available free online coverage, but I believe an expert in the field could find more. Sources like this one appear to show that this is a topic with extant coverage in reliable sources and would provide the basis for a good article here. Gonzonoir (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: if it was just this one largely empty page, of insubstantial content, I'd support delete or merge. The problem is it page appears to be one of a constellation of pages, one per country (at first glance), detailing the current status of lgb rights in African countries. Why is this article, of all of them, different enough to be nominated for deletion? I would think these stand or fall as a class: either all these pages get merged into one page like lgb rights in africa (except for those that genuinely do stand apart in terms of having substantial content), which would seem the best solution, or they all stay, which would seem the path of least resistance.Simon Dodd (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if it were more topical, i wouldn't support deletion - but it duplicates information that could just as easily go on the LGBT rights in Africa page. i'd offer the others for deletion at a later date too if they're insubstantial, but i don't see much point in making tons of deletes if everyone is going to just oppose them, and since the conversation will be the same on all these pages we may as well just settle such matters here; if necessary, this consensus/discussion can be referenced later. i think a quick, easy source for all this information is better than a bunch of individual articles that have limited value. there's nothing wrong with expanding subarticles for those that are more topical, so, for now, Delete. Aurush kazemini^talk 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge - no substantial content (and in fact the content is not even factual as it is an interpretation of the law of Benin, and not what the law actually states), and as others have pointed out, an overview article on human or gay rights in Africa is the better place for the information. Thanks, Afroghost (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Not factual"? Reliable sources disagree with you (e.g., [1]). The content of the article appears to be correct to me. JulesH (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly the victim of someone thinking Benin just isn't that notable a country, this is systemic bias in action. National subarticles for topics like LGBT rights are clearly verifiable, notable, and necessary to keep the main LGBT rights article from getting bloated. Steven Walling (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Pointing out systemic bias is considered insulting, and is against Wikipedia's rules, per this discussion with a Wikipedia administrator. This is not allowed, and your comment should be disappeared from the project page. SmashTheState (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well it wasn't pointing out systematic bias that got you the insult warning, it was calling fellow editors "computer nerds" and "Asperger and OCD shut-ins". TastyCakes (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking for some explanation of this frankly nonsensical deletion debate has led me to conclude that this is in fact some moronic spin off of you two (above) users and at least one poorly executed sock puppet fighting about politics, and deleting articles that each think will piss off the other. For christ sakes, grow up. If you can't interact on Wikipedia without creating a massive waste of time for other people, then sign off and go outside. Can we get an admin to close this? T L Miles (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While my involvement may have been the motivation for some of Aurush's AFD nominations, I have had nothing to do with this article or nomination (until getting annoyed at SmashTheState's obnoxious claim above). As for the rest of it, I'm sorry I let myself get into these pointless (if not outright counter productive) arguments with Smash and his buddies. TastyCakes (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Many of the LGBT rights in... articles have "Gay life in..." that are quite useful. I just added this section and added that an Anglican LGBT group was established in Benin in 2006 (sourced, natch). Information on Benin is difficult to find in English, but it will come and I favor keeping this stub article so it can grow. As it is now, the article has encyclopedic information that is not found in the LGBT rights in Africa tables. As I'm poking around, I see we can do a lot better in general on the coverage of LGBT in Africa. There are lots of organizations and websites with information that should be covered. Scarykitty (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP Virtually all countries have LGBT rights articles (and those that do not, are having them added). Many of these articles are stubs, and will be fleshed out. The LGBT rights in country articles have suffered from some neglect in the past, but numerous editors add information to the various country and continent rights tables per week. African and Asian LGBT rights in (country) articles are especially notable because many countries in Africa (and some in Asia) still criminalize homosexual acts, some even having the death penalty. It should also be noted that the LGBT rights in Africa article chiefly consists (at this time) of a transcluded table which appears on both that article & the Homosexuality laws of the world article. Merging the data into the above article would be sloppy and also remove the LGBT rights Benin article from being in the appriopriate Benin categories. Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, this is a clearly notable topic, per Outsider80, and deleting it would be a case of systemic bias if we weren't also to remove those articles that pertain to Western nations. If deleted, we would, in effect, be saying that the climate of LGBT life in Benin is not as important as LGBT life in the United States. Instead of doing the "easy" thing and sending this to deletion, we should be trying to find English articles and/or a user who knows French that could search for French articles to add sourcing and more information. AfD isn't for poor quality articles that are on notable subjects. SMSpivey (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see why not. GLBT issues are quite contemporary and important. I believe they definitely have a place on Wikipedia. This article is encyclopedic. We need more articles like this and less articles like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strummingbabe (talk • contribs) 00:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: either LGBT rights are not notable, or Benin is not notable, or the article is poor. The first two assertions are (apart from anything else) not consistent with wikipedia articles on LGBT rights or national topics. If the last is your argument, you could have researched and improved it in the time it took to engage in this deletion exercise. If this is a "Vanity topic" then you are considering the attention to either all people of LGBT sexual orientation or an entire nation "Vanity". Either is absurd. "Can be covered in...": Communications in Benin can be covered in Communications in Africa, but certain topics are considered (in practice) "basic topics" by nation. LGBT rights are now generally so considered. If you feel they should not be generally, well that is an entirely different argument, and you should take it up elsewhere. Or else you should not respond to things with which you personally disagree by trying to remove Wikipedia articles about it. T L Miles (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article is clearly very poor, and most of those similar articles are both poor and nearly orphaned. i have no objection to the topic, i just want it in a place where it's clear and organized --- most of this is covered in LGBT rights in Africa, and a simple redirect fixes the problem; i didn't nominate LGBT rights in Zambia because it's topical and well-written. Aurush kazemini^talk 05:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: when you create multiple sock puppets and try to add User boxes so they will seem to be individual users, don't create identical sets of userboxes on more than one, even if you change them later. The "history" tab is viewable by everyone. T L Miles (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is poorly written, which is not a deletion reason. Notable topic, and there are references in the article to outside resources that discuss the topic in detail. Good enough for WP:N purposes. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. I fail to see any valid reason for deleting this article. Sure, it's a stub, but it's a sourced one on a topic that is clearly notable. Discussions on any possible merge should take place on the article's talk page, not here. JulesH (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2009 (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.