Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam and sexual techniques

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 delete. Sandstein 18:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and sexual techniques

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article duplicates Islamic views on anal sex and Sexuality in Islam Shrike (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the topic is well covered in Sexuality in Islam and there appears no value in this CONTENT FORK. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a content fork from an article that already has major problems. How is anal sex the same as intercourse during menstruation? This article conflates the two. The references are dead links. Certainly, encyclopedic coverage of topics relating to how religions attempt to regulate sexual behavior are appropriate. However, such articles must be well-referenced, neutral and balanced. This article fails that simple test. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fork of Islamic views on anal sex (which is itself an OR extravaganza with POV overtones, for what it's worth...) Carrite (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we really need is one article called sexuality in Islam (which is presently a redirect) and we should merge Islam and sexual techniques, Islamic views on anal sex, Islamic views on oral sex, Islam and sexual orientation and Islam and masturbation into that. Better to have one full article than a whole bunch of short ones.—S Marshall T/C 20:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to be the encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems logical. And since the basis for deletion of this article is that it duplicates information found in those articles it would seem like a solution to possible future AfDs too. --Carbon Rodney 10:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with this proposal. Cavarrone (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closer please note the current length of the article has been whittled away considerably from its state as of 22 February 2011 Anarchangel (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.