Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giles' theory of sexual desire

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 merge to James Giles (philosopher). slakr^\ talk / 23:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giles' theory of sexual desire

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

Apparently non-notable theory - 0 hits on Google Scholar. With one exception, all sources in the article are by Giles himself. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to James Giles (philosopher). His work on sexual desire has got some reviews[1][2][3][4], but they can easily be treated in the article on Giles. Ideally someone with access to the various journals could add a criticism section. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. An article on one book requires much more eminence than found here. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete This hypothesis (hardly a "theory" yet) has no independent notability at this point. Should the article on James Giles (philosopher) be kept, a few lines on this hypothesis could be merged there. --Randykitty (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Colapeninsula. The article on Giles was kept, so this material could appropriately be merged there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2014 (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.