Talk:Is Homosexuality a Menace?

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Is Homosexuality a Menace? article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Notability

Since the notability of this book has been questioned, I should note that I have found two additional sources that discuss it and that others probably exist as well. See, for example, David K. Johnson's book The Lavender Scare here and Pippa Holloway's Other Souths here. These are both recent, scholarly works. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw those before tagging. They seemed like minor mentions though with enough citations it can add up. Typically a book needs to pass WP:NBOOK. Is the information in these sources something we can use to write an article with? They just seem like quoting and data while making a point, not about the book itself. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not much of a distinction. They discuss the book in relation to larger issues, yes, but they do discuss it. That two recent books, both published within the last five years, find this book worth mentioning strongly suggests it is notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They don't discussion the book or author in terms of significance, rather some information taken from the book in relation to another point. That suggests notability, but would need a whole lot of cites like it to support on grounds of widely cited, more than a couple. Look I'm not AfD'ing but someone might just friendly warning based on my initial scan. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not correct. Johnson gives the book as one example of the way that a "perceived connection between sexual perversion, Washington D. C., and government bureaucracy" became widely accepted in American popular culture in the 1950s. It's true that he doesn't say "it was a significant book" in so many words, but it's not reasonable to insist that a source say something like that. If the book weren't significant, then there'd be no sense in using it as an example. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article notability and created by a sock

Article should be deleted in accordance with socky policy. The creator was known for his ideologically motivated edits, and this is a case of WP:OLDBOOK Notability.