Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porn creep

:{{la|Porn creep}} ([{{fullurl:Porn creep|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porn creep}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

PoV essay, whose original research is not supported by the listed references. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Not only that, the cited "references" do not even mention the term. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. — ERcheck (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Judging from google scholar, books, and news archive this is unfixable. Juzhong (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete pov pushing original research. Horrorshowj (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete; composed pretty much entirely of original research {{or}}. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. Spudinator (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I notice this phenomenon in real life. It happens to me as well. I don't want to inadvertantly let others know that I am a porn addict. So keep it as the info is very userful.--Witticism (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• :Unfortunately noticing something in real life is original research. Juzhong (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

: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.