Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female copulatory vocalizations


 * 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The result was   withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Tavix | Talk  14:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Female copulatory vocalizations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete. The article seems to violate WP:NEO and WP:NOTEVERYTHING Ormr2014 (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. A topic that has received legitimate scientific inquiry: the article already includes multiple scholarly citations, and there are other sources on the topic (see ), as well as news reports about the topic such as . We may want to consider retitling to copulatory vocalization to leave room for content about males, as well as content about non-primates such as .  --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Our articles on sex-related topics are really lacking. If anything we need more articles, not deletions. If you compare for instance the comprehensive nature of articles related to sports, species, metropolitan areas, sexual topics come nowhere near the coverage. This is probably the only longstanding page on sounds in sex. We would be stupid; in fact retarded to delete it. As far as i know, the nominator has suggested that he is a prude and deletionist elsewhere. If that is the case, it would be preferable that he devotes his time elsewhere where his/here possible bias would not come into play. Freidnless lnoner (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Passes WP:N. The topic has received significant coverage in scholarly research sources. Sources include, but are not limited to:, , , . North America1000 05:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Strong keep A valid article about a notable subject. There is plenty of reliable research available on this subject and it has recieved coverage in reliable sources. Thank you Trout 71 16:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Nomination Withdrawn. The general consensus is to keep the article so I'm withdrawing my nomination. Ormr2014 (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2015 (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.