Deletion of Feminine essence theory of transsexuality

Comment: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/perspectives_in_biology_and_medicine/v050/50.4bailey.html Baily and Kiira would be an 11th reference, this one from The Johns Hopkins University Press. If there are NPOV issues in the article then let's get 'em out. In the meantime you can't delete this on the grounds of  and . Here is a http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22feminine+essence+narrative%22+transsexuality&btnG=Search google search for those who need it. Special:Random|&mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Dick, AfD is solely for ideas that aren't |notable.  If you think that the subject is actually notable (as you say on my user talk page), then you need to withdraw the nomination
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: WP:N|Non-notable |POV-pushing at its |COI worst. The "feminine essence theory" is an obscure neologism coined 7 months ago in a "|self-published" source previously challenged by the article creator
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:COI||WP:SPS)

Comment: Nom needs to re-read  and , but in particular needs to read . ''Verifiability, not truth''. Even if nom believes the claim of this theory to be false, it is indeed a notable - if controversial - fact of its field. Article should probably be expanded and better MoS compliance, but those are reasons to ''edit'', not delete. Thanks
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:OR||WP:V)

Comment: Article satisfies |notability and |verifiability with non-trivial mentions in multiple |reliable sources. Also:  AfD is not the correct forum for addressing COI concerns; there are other procedures for that. And in any case, the editor accused of COI regarding this article has already issued the proper disclosures and has not edited the page from any particular POV-slant as far as I can tell. I did a review of the sources and the article (and as part of that process cleaned up some of the formatting, but I've not edited the article prior to this AfD).  I found the page to be a simple report of a theory that some have put forth; it states that the theory has both supporters and critics and the article does not draw conclusions one way or the other.  The theory does exist in that it has been published, the fact that the theory may not be accepted does not change the notability based on its publication, and that is the criteria for inclusion of an article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:RS)