Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Testosterone poisoning

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 of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Testosterone poisoning

fundamentally POV and unencyclopedic concept. wikipediatrix 19:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per my nom. wikipediatrix 19:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable term in widespread use. Powers 19:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per LtPowers. Article provides more than enough references to prove that the term is in common use, but it might require a little bit of OR-removal to get it comfortably within WP:NEO. Tevildo 19:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not sure that "more than enough references" is true... must we have an article devoted to every term coined by anyone? What's next: "Mimbo"? "You go, girl"? "Dy-no-mite"? Secondly, if this article must exist, it needs to be renamed to Testosterone poisoning (term) or something, then, because this article has nothing to do with actual testosterone poisoning and is misleading. wikipediatrix 19:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As of mid-Nov 2005, the article has contained references to about ten scientific articles which most closely relate to the validity of this popular notion. I'm not sure what more could be asked for. Pete.Hurd 23:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per above. Needs some clean-up. Artw 19:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it may be a stupid idea, but it is notable. WilyD 19:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per above. Also should be Moved per wikipediatrix (although I'm not sure Testosterone poisoning (term) is the best alternate title). Irongargoyle 19:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there some other kind of "testosterone poisoning" that needs to be disambiguated? If not, and we create Testosterone poisoning (slang) or whatever, won't we just redirect this article to that one? In which case, why bother? Powers 00:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Notable but cleanup. Englishrose 20:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, as it seems to be fairly well-known, but it seems to be a neologism (would 20 years old be still considered a neologism?). It needs cleanup regardless. --ColourBurst 21:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• neutral comment I've contributed to one section this article (specifically the part dealing with scientific evidence not linking testosterone to aggressive behaviour in the simple causal method that the subject of this article, and popular wisdom assume). I think the article documents a notable view (I dislike the term "meme", but it does imply what I mean in this context) and treats it an a reasonably encylopeic manner. Since putting this article on my watchlist, I've been really surprised that it attracts such vehement, ideologically driven, attention. Pete.Hurd 23:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Note, I'm really not interested in the content of this article outside of the section on empirical evidence linking androgens and behaviour, and have no opinion on whether the article as a whole should be kept. Pete.Hurd 23:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- Notable term in broad use, at least in America. Atlant 22:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per wikipediatrix. -- Kjkolb 12:25, 6 July 2006 (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.