Deletion of Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome

Comment: I have cleaned up the article, removed all the unverifiable and personal-experience cruft, and properly sourced every statement.  What we're left with is a single journal article (case study involving two people), a press release that says they've actually seen five such cases, a glorified dictionary that summarizes the journal article, and an unrelated column written by a physician that is very probably, but not definitely, the same condition.  I have tried to include every possibly relevant fact from the sources, even including these non-medical sources, without transgressing , , or , so what you see is about as much as possible:  just fifteen (15) short sentences.  It's maybe not a bad article, but there's no chance of this being a |good article unless/until dramatically more is written about it in |proper reliable sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:V||WP:GA||WP:MEDRS)

Comment: Counterpoints alternative spacing to "Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome" turned up a number of newspaper articles on the subject. I don't know if they are linked above, but please see this 2002 newspaper article from IOL http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=31&set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=qw1018635120290B241, and this 2002 newspaper article from the Glasgow Daily Record http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-87444931.html. Also see this 2002 article from Family Practice News http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-2084797_ITM. Those mentions are sufficient to push it past , and therefore I am changing my recommendation to keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: the most productive research has been carried out independently by posters on the Naked Science Forum." Blog-based articles are not encyclopedic. One journal article is insufficient to satisfy 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)