Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex diet

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sex diet

del this dubiuous text sits here full of cleanup/warning templates for half a year, with the only reference being a FAQ at geocities of dubious authority. If something verifiable can be written later, by all means. But this text has to go. `'mikka (t) 19:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nn pointless diet books transformed into an even more pointless article. Yes, I feel comfortable dismissing this without reading the diet books. My Alt Account 19:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NN. Michael 19:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Anger22 22:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The section formally entitled 'further reading' provided the references needed for WP:VERIFY, so it passes the truth test. The {{fact}} tags all over the article are apalling additions seeminly made in bad faith. It attempts WP:NPOV, with mixed results, but nothing a little copyediting will not fix. Wikipedia is not censored, your dislike of the nature of the material does not count. LinaMishima 02:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No comment on the bad faith part, but this is a notable concept, and searching on this term reveals 165,000 Google hits. RFerreira 05:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  Whoah, who would have thought that the terms "sex" and "diet" would return a lot of google hits? ;-) My Alt Account 08:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• comment Thanks Uncle G for bringing a couple of references, but the article is still one piece of original research. Please don't forget that the vote is about a particular article, not about the topic. Once again, if one can rewrite the article based on the mentioned books, welcome. Lina, peace to you and your girlfriend. `'mikka (t) 06:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and fix per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep after researching the topic it apparently has some backing, most notably among the President of American Academy of Clinical Sexologists and has been featured on the Oprah show. I've added those refs as well as some minor clean up. Agne 18:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Agne - but without the implication that it being on Oprah gives it meaningful backing :) Markovich292 05:57, 16 September 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.