Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dietary estrogen feminist conspiracy

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 wasDelete.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 22:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dietary estrogen feminist conspiracy

Complete OR & biased article. Utterly unecyclopedic. Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete conspiracy theory presented as factual Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; WP:SOAP, WP:NOR and that sort of thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as complete bollocks. Oh, and WP:OR, fails WP:NPOV, fails WP:V, has no WP:RS, violates WP:NOT (a soapbox). But mainly, complete bollocks. Just zis Guy you know? 19:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Total nonsense. Actually, a serious article could be written about the effects of environmental estrogen exposure -- but this sure isn't it. BuckRose 21:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Trying to see if JzG left anything out, but I think he pretty well covered it. This is just dreadful. Fan1967 21:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article is complete and utter fertilizer. Danny Lilithborne 22:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Complete bollocks and the like (though not for much longer if we take these claims seriously...) Jammo (SM247) 23:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete An account of recent scientific studies into the effects of estrogen on males would be okay at the Estrogen page, but calling it a conspiracy when it is such an open topic in scientific circles is past what wikipedia is about. Disagree that the pileon of tags at the page was needed. Seems silly to have that many tags on a page, why not use {{ActiveDiscuss}} in place of them all. Ansell 00:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons already stated. but I did enjoy reading it :-) BalzacLFS 11:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Total original research conspiracy theory/hoax. (I tend to think the opposite has happened to men lately.) Grandmasterka 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it to BJAODN, I think enough people found it funny. Grandmasterka 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete OR, personal essay. POV could possibly be fixed, but that wouldn't change that it's OR. --Icarus 19:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• KILL IT WITH FIRE. Perhaps BJAODN. Jumbo Snails 20:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Do not let the feminists sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. POE. JRM · Talk 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Incredible nonsense. Parts could, possibly, be included into metrosexual. // Habj 20:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Delete This is a very easy deletion candidate. Philosophus ^T 20:52, 22 June 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.