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.
Keep topic seems to have garnered enough coverage in reliable sources to have an article. Also the nominator's arguments for deletion are not valid ones, especially the claim that it promotes promiscuity. Per WP:NOTCENSORED that is not a reason for deleting. Valenciano (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Probably skirting the notability guidelines, but "not a real diet" and "promotes promiscuity" are not valid in a deletion discussion. IgnorantArmies07:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does need a lot of work to flesh it out (no pun intended) with more reliable sourcing and to address all of the various stances and claims of the diet, but the thing is that sources do exist. Here are just a few that mention this diet, books that cover the diet, or go over the diet itself: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. These are just the ones I found straight off, so it is notable. As far as issues of this diet encouraging promiscuity, that's ridiculous and not a valid argument in any case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)14:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, was easily able to find over ten (10) different books with "Sex Diet" as the very title of the books themselves. — Cirt (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment - this article says its a lifestyle, like its a lifestyle decision to womanize or maneat. A diet is a food choice not a sex choice. I would understand an article the benefits of sex, but not this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucy346 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lucy, you may want to read up on how to contribute to AfD discussions and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. In particular: "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." and "While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted." --Atlantima (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is basically a health-related or medical topic, but none of the references rise to the quality needed for such an article. Edison (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename, name itself is the subject of noteworthy commentary from numerous books of which the name itself is the title of those books. — Cirt (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do the books have "noteworthy commentary" on the term "sex diet"? Or are they "noteworthy commentary" on the concept of sex to improve and maintain health, which they call a "sex diet"? I'm guessing it's the latter.--Atlantima (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2013 (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.