- 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. RL0919 ( talk) 06:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Sexuality of Santos Dumont
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sexuality of Santos Dumont ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although the subject is deceased, I think this falls under WP:NOTGOSSIP. This article appears to be a collection of rumors written in an unencyclopedic tone. The main Alberto Santos-Dumont article doesn't mention his sexuality at all, and I'm not sure if anything in the nominated article should be merged there. — Newslinger talk 01:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 01:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 01:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 01:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 01:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 01:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I do think a couple sentences on the topic could be added to Alberto_Santos-Dumont#Private_life, but not enough to call it a merge. This is undue weight as a separate article. Reywas92 Talk 05:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete appears to be speculation with no hard evidence, a bit of 2+2 =5. MilborneOne ( talk) 10:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and salvage nothing. None of it is worth saving, and would be undue gossip in the main article. -Crossroads- ( talk) 05:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as tasteless gossip. Eostrix ( talk) 10:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete crass and distasteful; more importantly, unsubstantiated gossip being given undeserved prominence. This is not encyclopedic material. Gross. Madness Darkness 23:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Dletereally, we are going to start speculation because someone was "well groomed"? And considering how many people who were married there has been speculation about their sexuality, this is all rubbish, as well as presentist bias. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:12, 3 November 2019 (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.