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 and redirect to Bisexuality. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Innate bisexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I don't believe that "Innate bisexuality" is actually the name of a specific "psychoanalytic theory", as the article claims. The article is completely lacking in citations, except for a single citation to Freud's "Three Essays on the Theory of Sex", and it could be considered an original research interpretation of that one source. Essentially the article is about one narrow aspect of Freud's views on bisexuality: there is no evidence that this specific aspect of Freud's views is notable as a separate subject. There is almost no worthwhile content and no reason for it to exist as a separate article. Any relevant content (which would at most be a sentence or two) could be shifted to the article on Bisexuality. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the content and replace with redirect to Bisexuality, per nominator, WP:TNT, and WP:NOPAGE. It does indeed appear to be unsourced original research on the primary source of Freud himself. It has been tagged as needing more sources since 2008. The Bisexuality article already discusses Freud; and there we have the benefit of context, showing all the perspectives RS have had on the topic. This page is an inadvertent WP:POVFORK. By the way, the first AfD should have no bearing on this; it is from 2005, and all of the keep votes are vague assertions with no basis in policy. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to the Bisexuality article. Any necessary material about the topic, which is seen addressed in book sources on Google Books (linked above), can be covered in the Bisexuality article. Not every topic needs its own article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The content of this article could possibly be very briefly mentioned in the Bisexuality article. It has one reference...from 1920. TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2019 (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.