Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oragenitalism


 * 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   keep. Shimeru (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Oragenitalism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable book, lots of sex manuals on the market.  MBisanz  talk 18:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Keep. Notability is established by several discussions of the book and its publishing history in reliable sources, including the claim "the earliest book of its kind on the subject, and for a long time the only one". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or maybe, redirect and merge to Gershon Legman. Legman is a notable figure; this book does get occasional mentions (e.g. passing reference in this New York Times article and about 20 hits at Google Scholar), and the content and footnotes of this article could be profitably incorporated into his bio article., but I'm not yet finding sure that there is enough separate discussion of this book to support a separate article but Kenilworth Terrace's additions do make a case for the notability of the book as the "earliest of its kind".--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Comment revised 17:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. A clearly unresearched, waste-of-time nomination from an editor who seems to specialise in such nominations. Here are 177 sources for starters. And what on earth does the fact that there are lots of sex manuals on the market have to do with whether we should have an article about this one? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2010 (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.