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. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storms sexuality axis[edit]

Storms sexuality axis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable theory. I could only find one journal article relating to this and almost all of the Google hits for this are simply Wikipedia mirrors. Thus, fails WP:V and WP:Notability. Jackhorkheimer 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; no evidence that the concept is in widespread use. More sources would be required to show this. Walton monarchist89 19:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, several non-trivial Google Books results. It's possible this would be better noted in an article on Storms himself. The axis is more an illustration of his hypotheses than anything else. --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my nom. While there are nine references to Michael Storms from Google Books, only four mention the concept at all. --Jackhorkheimer 19:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 07:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Theory that has little currency. Could create hundreds of pages of discarded or dusty psychosexual theories. Rkevins 09:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as copyright violation from here (which, in turn, is mostly an apparent copyright violation from page 52 of ISBN 0415166594). It's not at all clear this is notable enough for its own article in any case. —Celithemis 09:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as copyvio per above. Jefferson Anderson 22:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Celithemis (I wonder why the copyright violator didn't just upload the picture of the x-y axis too...). Cedlaod 03:33, 15 February 2007 (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.