Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex sneezing syndrome


 * 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  per the snowball clause. Non-admin closure. MuZemike ( talk ) 18:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sex sneezing syndrome

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD. Non-notable neologism. &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 03:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   -- &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 03:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   -- &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 03:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Undecided Not sure how I feel. I'll be able to make up my mind better in a month.  Consider withdrawing the AfD and redoing it in a month.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The title of the article is a neologism, but the phenomenon has been medically documented, including (as noted in a Straight Dope column on the subject) the Journal of the American Medical Association. Perhaps move to a more suitable title once we find a medically-accepted term, and rewrite to provide more sources and make it more encyclopedic?  Graymornings (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great idea. Care to be bold on the rewrite and recommend a move target?  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure thing!  Graymornings (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm in the process of adding sources and info, so I added a "construction" tag. There's actually quite a lot of info on the subject out there. I've also proposed a move to Sexual sneezing.  Graymornings (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment -- If the term was coined over a hundred years ago it is hardly a neologism! Geo Swan (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's still a neologism, just not a new phenomenon. Info wasn't originally in the article when G716 nommed it.  Graymornings (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -- This is a real phenomenon. May I remind everyone that deletion is supposed to be based on the merits of covering the topic, not on the current state of the article?  Geo Swan (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've revamped the article from its original state quite a bit, and I think it merits keeping now. I say keep but move to Sexual sneezing per naming conventions ("sex sneezing syndrome" is, after all, still a neologism).  Graymornings (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - definitely notable, verifiable, and expandable. Rename to 'sexual sneezing syndrome'. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - that an article's title is a neologism isn't a reason to delete. Any rename of the article (and there probably should be one, as a neologism isn't a suitable title) can be decided on the article's talk page. JulesH (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep highly encyclopedic subject, just the kind of info I would expect in an encyclopedia, somewhat baffled at the afd given the impeccable primary sources seconded in the BBC article. As article creator I have been very unsure about the title and would happy to see the name changed. I started it as aone line stub in the hope that others would collaborate in expanding, and this is happening. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per above + Seen it in an Irish newspaper yesterday. --Balloholic (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - has received a lot of news coverage over the last week, certainly meets WP:N, there are a few good sources in there for WP:V, too. – Toon (talk)  16:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * *ACHOO!* Er, I mean, keep per the arguments made above, the multiple sources cited within the body of the article suggest a certain academic interest and notability.  JBsupreme (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not actually a syndrome.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Shows WP:NOTABILITY and a highly encyclopedic subject. Jonathan321 (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- Wow. When I first saw this AFD and saw the article, i thought "no way this is going to be kept.". Looking at it now, it is a damn sight better than it originally was. Exceptional work by whoever worked on the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2008 (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.