Deletion of Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell (4th nomination)

Comment: as both |content fork and insufficient for a standalone article. Subject is already convered in Robert_Baden-Powell,_1st_Baron_Baden-Powell#Sexuality|main article, and none of the sources cited in this AfD suggest it is worthy of expansion, let alone  treatment. I see nothing in the current version worth merging. It is amazing that this has survived 3 AfDs
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks (WP:FORK||WP:SUMMARY)

Comment: This discussion was not properly included on the January 27 AfD log; instead, the 1st nomination (from 2006) appeared (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_January_27&oldid=340314209 old version).  I've now fixed it to satisfy |Step 3
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFDHOWTO)

Comment: I would usually !vote for a merge in such cases, but the Baden-Powell main article seems enough too long to allow that. The subject has been covered in several sources in detail, and as such there's no reason to delete it -we ought to report it. The subject is not living since long time, so  concerns are of course moot.  applies to articles individually, not to WP coverage: I agree it's quite quirky to see so much attention on Baden-Powell sexuality, but it's not to me or to anyone else to ''judge'' subjects of articles. It can be a fringe theory, but we ''do'' of course cover fringe theories extensively in Wikipedia, of course, if they're notable (provided they're presented as such an keeping NPOV). The fact that there are few or none other "Sexuality of X" articles it's a  argument and, if anything, only tell us that more articles like this one could be needed, if backed up by enough RS to merit an article in itself. In the end, what counts is if the subject has been covered by multiple independent RS. Since it is, it meets  and every other consideration -merging, trimming, etc.- can be dealt with editing, per |deletion policy and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:UNDUE||WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST||WP:GNG||WP:ATD||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: per  - too concerned with spinning history for political purposes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: The existence and length of this article gives |undue weight to a relatively minor and unimportant bit of theorizing about Baden-Powell. It therefore violates , which is a Foundation policy. A sentence or two, maybe a paragraph, in the main biography is really all that this theory warrants
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:NPOV)

Comment: A non-notable |fringe theory. The relevant section of the main article, which is featured, has a sufficient coverage. If a man has a wife and three children, he obviously is not from LGBT stock. Besides, the main article does not label Baden-Powell with some LGBT category
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Content is already summarized in RBP main article, and is barely shorter than this spin off.  So it is clearly a content fork, but is it worth keeping?  The sources as represented present content so speculative as to be nearly unencyclopedic.  I mean, I almost laughed, ''he's saying that based on *what*?''. Bayes' theorem|Given the intensity of that corner of scholarship which tries to identify anything nonheteronormative in famous historical figures, if this is the best that can be done the topic is clearly non-notable, deserving one or two sentences (not paragraphs) in the main article at best.  Basing this much prose on such |indiscriminate ponderings is extraordinarily |undue
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:UNDUE)