Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facts of Reproduction

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Several reasons this page needs to be deleted.

1. It is rambling POV. Example: Such innuendo is usually presented in a humorous setting, a trend spearheaded perhaps by the television show Three's Company and continued the television show Facts of Life, its successors and many other shows since then.
2. It makes specific and highly debatable assertions with no citations. Example: Generally, girls are told about the facts of life sooner than boys, since they reach puberty sooner and are viewed as being more at risk to bear the burden of child raising if teen-aged preganancies occur and are carried to term and live birth.
3. It is poorly written and unencyclopedic. Example: Often, the moral message is merely abstinence, however, sometimes more creatigve alternates to copulation, such as tribadism and/or frottage (are these the correct terms?)...
4. But, most importantly, the entire article was written for the express purpose of proving a point. Quote: You all think I am just oogling her. I had an Aha! moment recently. I had no idea that boy and girls wrestle now because I went this a Catholic school system where they _still_ have some issues with it. For those of you who can stand it, the full talk page is here -- Xaa 01:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - and my vote is Delete. Xaa 01:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Reproduction deals with this much better and there is nothing here worth merging. Capitalistroadster 01:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --JPotter 01:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Redirect to Reproduction but do not merge. Well-formatted POV rant, no information even worth smerging. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka makes a good point; I stand corrected. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons stated above. Also, for the curious, Talk:Elizabeth Morgan and Talk:Shirley Temple are stunning displays of something-or-other by Amorrow, the article creator. tregoweth 02:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A redirect is inappropriate here, otherwise we'll have people creating redirections for "Facts of Henry VIII", "Facts of Andromeda Galaxy", etc. Nandesuka 02:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no merge and no redirect, for reasons given by Nandesuka and Fernando Rizo. Mitchell k dwyer 02:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, gosh, delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as duplication after merging any acceptable content. Title too obscure to redirect, I think. DavidH 05:36, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• LOL. You know, a sociologist or other social commentator might be able to write an excellent meditation on the cultural aspects of the rite of being told the "Facts of Life." As it stands, this one's a delete.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 08:12:59, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
• Weak keep --And I wrote the thing. Come on. The city slicker goes out to the farm and gets all embarrassed. Happens all the time in fiction and in non-fiction. I will just go ask one of my nice friends do re-write it. Like that one that is that Assistant Dean of her Sociology Department or sumthin. Alright, you jus do that nasty vfd. You think I am just going lay down and die? You should talk to people who do research on AIDS: Every time they thing that they got that little bug squashed, it changes, and thereby changes the game. See ya around soon! Amorrow 01:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amorrow - I would suggest you take your time here at wikipedia more seriously, based on your edits, this is all a game to you. --JPotter 22:19, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. DS1953 14:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN Definately funny. Karmafist 15:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'BJAODN - A hilarious article, though it doesn't provide encyclopedia information, not to mention most of this stuff is already in the reproduction article. [unsigned comment by Fraghappy]
• Delete. It's not a bad joke, it's just plain bad. --Carnildo 20:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Essay. Not encyclopedic. There's human sexuality for those people who are interested in more encyclopedic expositions. It is true the "social aspects" section of that article is sadly, sadly lacking, though. It's all spread out in separate articles. While this article definitely doesn't pass muster, the need it fills is real. As an aside, I don't know why people keep mentioning reproduction. Despite the title, the article doesn't have the same topic as that at all. JRM · Talk 21:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete personal essay. --Etacar11 23:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is funny, but we can't keep it (put it in BJAODN). MicahMN | Talk 00:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obviously. It's not funny because it wasn't intended to be. -Splash 19:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a very poorly written wiki. Its strange language is confusing. But it had me laughing my behind off reading it. It does not belong on Wikipedia in this form, though. Nagaflas 04:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per consensus →Raul654 04:22, August 16, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.