Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anterior fornix erogenous zone (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. While the first nomination did not reach a consensus there is a consensus here that it lacks notability and the content is not suitable for merging. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Anterior fornix erogenous zone
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable sources are cited to support any of the content in this article. Reads like an infomercial for a Malaysian sex researcher. Every citation is directly or indirectly from this single source. For example, scientific claims about human anatomy attributed to a pdf version of presentation slides extolling the author as a recipient of an award from a known Who's Who scam publisher. causa sui (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. causa sui (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge with Erogenous_zone. There is some modicum of properly cited research here, but it doesn't need it's own entire article, perhaps instead an additional paragraph in the aforementioned section of Erogenous zone. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nomination, the article's problem tags, and per WP:FRINGE - there is nothing worth saving in this article because none of it meets WP:MEDRS (which of course includes sexual health). Crossroads -talk- 05:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Tagged for a decade, fails WP:FRINGE, violates WP:MEDRS. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per my arguments on the article's talk page. For example, in 2012, I commented, "It's time for this article to be nominated for deletion again. Like I stated in an edit summary, 'How this article even survived its AfD is beyond me.' It's a concept that isn't supported by much of any evidence, if any at all, and, unlike the G-spot, which has more evidence supporting it than this, it hasn't been notably studied by scholars." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2020 (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.