Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual desire between siblings

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 redirect to Genetic sexual attraction.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 08:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual desire between siblings

Original Research abakharev 01:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Incest. The article, as it is, smacks of WP:OR, but it seems like it could be reasonably replaced by a simple redirect. The title is logical enough. alphaChimp ^laudare 01:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. SynergeticMaggot 02:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Genetic sexual attraction TheronJ 02:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Genetic sexual attraction. Oh yea: Ewww..... AdamBiswanger1 02:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per User:TheronJ and User:Adambiswanger1. Penelope D 02:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. Please note that this action does not require an AFD. Themindset 05:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per User:TheronJ and User:Adambiswanger1. --BrownHairedGirl 06:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Genetic sexual attraction. Probably a better choice than just redirecting to incest. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the title is OR as well. Just zis Guy you know? 12:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There are two points of redirecting. So people searching for one thing can be automatically forwarded to the relevant article, and so that existing wikilinks don't break. I'd be pretty surprised if someone were to search for exactly this term (incest being far more likely, IMO), and the article is essentially an orphan (only links outside the AfD realm are a vandalism warning and some user page with already a lot of nonexistant article links). I don't see any reason to keep it at all. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 15:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  Eh, it can't hurt. AdamBiswanger1 21:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to either Incest or Genetic sexual attraction. --Bigtop 17:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect - The article isn't up to Wikipedia standards, and is more like an essay. However, it seems quasi-useful, and I believe it merits a redirect. Cheers, RelentlessRouge 17:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Stubblyhead. wikipediatrix 20:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OREdison 22:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete smacks of OR. --Ezratrumpet 05:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete smells strongly of WP:OR.--Dakota 05:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Naconkantari 14:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect Per above. *~Daniel~* ☎ 18:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to this being original research, no prejudice against creating a valid redirect afterwards. Yamaguchi先生 22:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect I don't think it's original research (just unsourced). I remember seeing calculations like this in an evolutionary statistics class many moons ago, so it might be worthwhile keeping the edit history in case someone more competent than me wants to include them in the GenSexAtt article. ~ trialsanderrors 18:50, 10 August 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.