Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biscuits and human sexuality
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
— User:Guest9999, 05:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:SYN||WP:LEAD||WP:OR (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)