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 (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty pleasure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article is essentially a definition of the phrase, more suitable to wiktionary, and is completely unsourced. Loodog (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article has definite possibility beyond a dictionary definition. Sourcing shouldn't be a problem, see [1], [2], [3], [4] [5]. Jfire (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as shown by Jfire, I think this article has potential beyond being a wiktionary thing. matt91486 (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but source, both practical and spiritual/moral aspects to this phrase. Interestingly, does not mention food (say, chocolate), and no obvious article such as dieting or weight loss addresses cheating. --Dhartung | Talk 06:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Loodog (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there are no reliable, indpendent multiple references that discuss this phenomenon (and I mean really discuss it, and not just mention the phrase). No references == fails WP:RS, WP:V etc. S. Proudleduck (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2008 (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.