Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unnatural act (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Crime against nature. The consensus is clearly to keep the article's content. However, the content itself should be merged to Crime against nature. No one has explicitly argued against a merge, just to keep the article's content. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unnatural act[edit]

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

removed PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD). PROD reason was: The article seems biased since there are may other usages of the term unnatural act. The article has been around for years and nobody has improved it sofar.. Illia Connell (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As explained in the prior AfD, it's an old legal concept. Note all the articles with links to this one. One might consider a merge and redirect to crime against nature; my 1951 Black's Law Dictionary defines "unnatural offense" as "the infamous crime against nature, i.e., sodomy or buggery". --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge I have seen nothing in wikipedia oability guidelines saying old rules are notable as a stand-alone article. Pass a Method talk 23:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but probably ~~redirect~~ merge. It lacks careful delineation of scope. As a historical legal concept, it's notable, as some of these search results indicate. However, as a matter of legal history, you could probably redirect it to crime against nature (as does this edition of Barron's Law Dictionary[1]). That article has its own problems, though. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep then merge to Crime against nature. - Dravecky (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Keep then merge to Crime against nature. -- The Anome (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage in secondary sources, including scholarly sources, books, and in-depth investigative journalism media reportage. — Cirt (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Crime against nature. The legal concept is notable, but the specific language of different statutes doesn't seem to warrant separate articles. Cnilep (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'd come to agree that this should have to be merged. — Ṙ ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge works for me as well. If that ends up being the result, please don't forget to re-redirect Unnatural sex in the same manner, as that currently redirects here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Afd is not meant for article improvement or merger discussions. BTW, merge per above. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2013 (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.