Deletion of Biscuits and human sexuality

Comment: I have to say, quite a lot of people seem to think I've nommed this per . Let me make it clear: ''I do like it!'' I laughed when I read it. It's funny. That said, humor isn't a good reason to keep an unencyclopedic article. If we're really going by WP policy (and not ), this article doesn't have much going for it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: while it is drawing information about various aspects of biscuits & sex together as one article, that's simply the function of an encyclopedia. No original conclusions are being drawn and information appears to be supported by sources. While it is a "synthesis" in the sense of "a combination of information on a subject", that's simply what an encyclopedia article is. It is not a "synthesis of published works to reach a new conclusion" that would actually violate 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: I've read, reread and read again (and thoroughly enjoyed on every occasion) but I'm still struggling to locate the alleged   / . As Malleus has oft repeated throughout this discussion there is an absolute absence of "novel conclusions" & what I read is a factual and perfectly sourced article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYN)

Comment: everything is cited to (as far as I can tell) reliable sources. Also per . &ndash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: The nominator is absolutely correct, the subject of the article is artificially chosen and the article is a bad case of , an ad hoc collection of several refs involving the words "sex" and "biscuits" in them. It makes for a good laugh but not for a coherent encyclopedic topic. One can create an article of this kind by taking any two words from the dictionary, running a googbooks search for their combination and then making a collage Wikipedia article from them called "A and B" where A and B can be anything. There is no indication in the references cited that anyone ever actually considered "sex and biscuits" to be a separate and coherent topic worth saying anything about.  For example, the Madonna-Guy Ritchie episode does not even seem to fall into the scope of the article as it is defined in the article's opening paragraph. Madonna claimedhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-559327/No-sex-Madonna--Im-Cookie-Diet.html that Ritchie was trying to lose weight on a "cookie diet" and that the loss of sex drive was one of the side-effects. That does not really correspond well to the article's stated subject: "human sexual behavior involving biscuits or cookies, to pornographic material involving biscuits and cookies, or to the use of biscuits and cookies as a medium for the production and distribution of pornography". The McVitie's story also seems like rather a stretch. A careful reading of the reference provided therehttp://news.scotsman.com/annsummers/Sex-partys-crumbs-of-comfort.2366308.jp shows that McVitie's justified its partnership decision with Ann Summers by demographic marketing considerations ("new cookies are aimed at the same target market - women aged 20-45") rather than by asserting a special connection between biscuits and sex. The ref given for the Mondongo storyhttp://www.mondongo.tv/archivos/quienes/kevin_eng.html also appears to say that Mondongo's choice of buscuits as a medium for making a series of pornographic images was motivated by other considerations and not by asserting some kind of a special link between buscuits and sex. The ref says: "Things stink and no wonder Mondongo has even thought of making a work from out their own faeces. They didn’t, they chose biscuits, this time, equally heinous since they are what the wives of the military would have nibbled on at tea-time as they told stories to their ‘adopted’ children." Again, I don't really see in any of these references a specific discussion of relationship between sex and biscuits as a coherent topic. Overall, the entire subject of the article seems to be an artificially created one to me
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: In so far as the citations refer to biscuits or sexuality but not the other, their use violates , and in so far as they relate to both, the coverage is desperately trivial
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: obviously, as the creator. In what way is this original research? Every single factual claim, is cited; in almost every case to easily verifiable and indisputably reliable sources. It's only a "synthesis" in that it's an article about different aspects of a topic – which ''every'' article of ours other than the most specialised is. What "novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources" are you suggesting I'm making here? I very carefully avoided making ''any'' conclusions or value judgments. Your nomination, which appears to boil down to , seems to me to fail to do the same. Obviously, it's a sketchy article; it was less than six hours old at the time you nominated it for deletion. What policy exactly are you claiming this article violates?&nbsp;–&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: and tag with a joke box like the one at the top of ditor for deletion.  Oh, and while you are at it, nominate the primary author for deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:E)

Comment: no |reliable sources appear to have written about the purported links between biscuits and human sexuality - Wikipedia is #OR|not a publisher of original work and so should not be the first to publish on any topic. As it is this isn't even an article about "biscuits and human sexuality" it's a list of a few instances that have - supposedly - involved both, since no one has written anything about any connection between the two it's effectively a #DIR|non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation. Additionally a lot of what makes up the article is very misleading, describing http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=5356&in_page_id=2 this as pornography is borderline-ridiculous in my opinion (and more importantly not supported by reliable sources) - additionally a worker trying to get one past their employer really has little to do with either biscuits or human sexuality. There's |synthesis throughout (for example from the sourced "''in nineteenth century American usage the term "biscuit" referred to a young woman seen as a sex object''" the editor has derived "''The cultural link between biscuits and sexuality dates at least as far back as the nineteenth century''" - a slang term does not establish a cultural link, especially when the etymology of the slang isn't known). The |lead is also |original research as the phrase "biscuits and human sexuality" seems to have been http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Biscuits+and+human+sexuality%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a invented purely for the purposes of this article, the list of things it can refer to appears to have been arbitrarily defined by Wikipedia editors - it can't be defined by sources because there aren't any
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:SYN||WP:LEAD||WP:OR)

Comment: it's somewhat ironic to me that this article has such strong support (and I'm not calling it undeserved, mind you), when a perfectly notable and similar topic, rticles for deletion/Unification Church views of sexuality is having a somewhat rougher go of it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)

Comment: A clear case of synthesis as has been explained well by several people commenting here.  This is sort of a ''pons asinorum'' for .  If you don't see how the article lead and in fact its existance violates the policy, then you don't understand what synthesis means in the context of Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)