Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolescent sexuality in the United States (2nd nomination)

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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adolescent sexuality in the United States[edit]

I have to say, this article represents a significant content fork. An article about adolescent sexuality in the United States should contain information specific to the United States, which would encompass statistical information related to the United States, or information that is only applicable to the United States. That being said, this content makes up a small minority of the article, with the vast majority of the article being a very heavily unbalanced discussion of adolescent sexuality as a general subject. Now, I’m not one to suggest that articles should be deleted just because they have some sort of POV, but because the amount of information that actually relates to the subject of the article itself is so scarce, and would not logically need its own article beyond its section in adolescent sexuality, then the article itself represents an unnecessary fork. Calgary (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, fairly strongly. The subject is fairly obviously notable, if only because public comment and media interest in the sex lives of adolescents, usually accompanied by various sorts of handwringing and calls for the government to Do Something, is a very prominent part of the national psychopathology of the United States. Yes, this article has serious POV problems. It is also fairly full of useful material. This calls for further editing, not deletion. - 24.235.22.24 (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i don't see any pov issues, and even then that isn't a reason to delete --T-rex 14:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PoV looks largely okay, though it has some problems in different sections. But that's an editing problem. Looks good. Hobit (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of US-focused content and sources in this article to justify a keep. Editing yes, and I would appreciate the help trying to make it more neutral and more soundly sourced, issues I have been trying to deal with for months, often going one-on-one with a single fairly intransigent editor. Deletion, no. --Sfmammamia (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It sounds like the nominator would rather the article be merged or renamed. I disagree regardless. Maxa megalon 2000 02:11, 30 July 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.