- 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 no consensus. Leaving a cleanup tag on the article. --Coredesat 00:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical of this article (and so is another user, who said so on the article's talk page). Seems to be a non-notable dicdef with dubious sources. —EdGl 06:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sounds like a neologism to me. Also, a really, really big reach (fear of intimacy is "sexual anorexia"? Come on.) Opabinia regalis 06:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As per nom... Spawn Man 08:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Opabinia regalis. I thought this sort of thing was over for the night after the "stripper fetishism" article. Oh well. NeoFreak 08:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. Piffle. Bubba hotep 10:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete -NN and should not be. Arctic-Editor 15:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacks adequate verifiable sources to pass WP:NEO or WP:V.-- danntm T C 17:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Part WP:NEO WP:DICDEF, part WP:OR. -- IslaySolomon | talk 18:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep While the article is not well written, containing inappropriate text and inappropriate links, the condition does have a vast number of google hits, and clearly exists.--Anthony.bradbury 21:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Anthony.bradbury. It does get a high number of Ghits, needs a cleanup, possible rewrite and better links.--John Lake 00:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - My quick take after some time in some library databases is this is for real. See Patrick J. Carnes article titled "The Case for Sexual Anorexia: An Interim Report on 144 Patients with Sexual Disorders" in the December 1998 issue of the journal Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity. The abstract says the term "sexual anorexia" is used to describe "sexual aversion disorder." Another source in the June 2003 issue of the same journal is by Laura Nelson and titled "Sexual Addiction versus Sexual Anorexia and the Church's Impact." According to the Academic Search Premier database, this is a peer reviewed journal published in the UK. Please let me know if more information is required. Keesiewonder 02:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you add the citations for the sources that you have found to a "Further reading" section of the article, using {{cite journal}} for best results, future editors will know where there are sources to be had that can be used to clean up the article. Uncle G 17:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestion; I've made a pass at implementing this. Keesiewonder 01:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you add the citations for the sources that you have found to a "Further reading" section of the article, using {{cite journal}} for best results, future editors will know where there are sources to be had that can be used to clean up the article. Uncle G 17:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Thanks to Keesiewonder. The exact terminology appears in peer reviewed journals as a real dysfunction. We have multiple, non-trivial, and very reliable sources here to write a good article from. While at first it may have appeared deletable, it looks like new evidence has changed the landscape of this one. --Jayron32 06:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Keesiewonder. Everyking 12:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep per jayron & Keesiewonder. I suspect that several different syndroms are being conflated here, but that's for the experts. It is being written about in respectable journals, people are doing research on it, its real. Need building up to standards expected of WP psychological/medical articles, but that should not be difficult. It may be a vogue word, but its here now. we record & document, not judge or predict. DGG 05:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, just because some people are not familiar with psychological terms it does not mean they don't exist. Rough 14:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, for reasons cited by the last three Alf photoman 16:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, which one is next, Gender Dysphoria? Naem 213.42.21.78 20:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Keesiewonder. This appears real. --Oakshade 20:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - cleanup though, the article needs work, badly -- Tawker 07:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but only with serious cleanup, which I am willing to undertake. There are reliable sources for it, and it isn't a neologism. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:32, 1 December 2006 (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.