Talk:Paruresis

Why?

^Тy^{Not updated with a witty slogan this week} 16:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Mission relevance?

1. This article can be replaced by {{wpl|paruresis}} if it's used anywhere.
2. It appears to have been created only to allow the author to link to the docs on his website. Sorry, but we are not NathanWiki.
3. TMI.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I say delete. Тy^{Not updated with a witty slogan this week} 16:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This isn't mission-relevant. --_transResident Transfan^form! 17:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well it's borderline at best. Perhaps the author can justify this article's existence? Sophie^Wilder 17:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think RW editors using mainspace to air personal grievances about real world stuff that happened to them in the legal/penal system is a good road to go down. Delete, unless the article is made mission-relevant & the links to disciplinary/appeal docs removed. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Concur. Delete. Hipocrite (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree. Vaporize it. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 18:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Eh, the topic is as mission-relevant as, say, fibromyalgia. It's the whole concept of some parties saying the disorder doesn't exist, while others say it does. Perhaps with personal examples excised, it could remain? Tisane (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)