Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex-positive


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 13:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sex-positive
''This page was nominated for AfD in an incorrect way. Fixing the nomination; I did not nominate. -- H·G (words/works) 05:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this article should be dleeted since i find it to not be noteworthy. At the very least i think it should be merged with Sex or Human Sexuality as a subsection of one of those articles. So delete or merge in my book. what do you think? Qrc2006 04:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above, or merge at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qrc2006 (talk • contribs)
 * Speedy Keep I'm not sure I see how this article fails notability. There are two books referenced in the article, and it's well-sourced to indicate that this is not a new or unfamiliar concept. The nomination reason doesn't seem grounded in WP policies. Perhaps a discussion in the article's talk page should occur before such an off-the-cuff AfD nomination? -- H·G (words/works) 05:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per HG, with whom I also agree that, for an article that has existed for nearly three years, for which sources are given, and that appears (under any relevant test) facially notable, a discussion at the article's talk page ought likely to be started prior to one's AfDing the article; in the absence of such a discussion, though, one should take pains to explicate why he/she believes the article to be inappropriate for the encyclopedia, lest AfD participants should be left, as I, nonplussed. Joe 05:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nom appears to be fairly young and fairly new at Wikipedia. My first AfD nomination involved a pretty well-sourced article on a subject who was notable (if not obviously so), and I was reamed appropriately in the AfD discussion. I'm going with AGF here; I pointed out some resources on the user's talk page and encouraged him to read up on WP guidelines in the future. -- H·G (words/works) 08:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment HG is, to be sure, correct that one ought to assume good faith here; I meant not to suggest that the nominator was acting untowardly but only to apprise him of how best to participate at AfD. To the extent that my comments can be interpreted otherwise, I'm altogether sorry... Joe 19:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - sources are given; the content is backed up. I don't think it's mainstream but it's notable enough. - Richardcavell 06:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. Nominator hasn't explained why it's non notable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - article does not fail notability, and there are no other reasons for deletion given. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 07:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, no justification given for deletion. Catamorphism 14:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per above. Smerdis of Tlön 14:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, article has references and is clearly notable. PseudoAnon 05:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, no valid justification for deletion. -Neural 21:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, article is informative, factual and well-sourced. Add'l sources may be added for clarification. What was the initial motive for deletion? A dislike for sex-related articles, perhaps? I can't think of any other explanation right now, so someone please enlighten me. (Patrick 04:35, 18 July 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.