Talk:Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Untitled

This page reads like an advert right now... I intend to bring it up for AfD if it remains an advertisement for long. I also have notability concerns. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not a terribly well-written article, but I think you'll have an uphill battle with an AfD. This book has had lots and lots of publicity and reviews, and was a top 10 on the NY Times bestseller list. Joyous! | Talk 00:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, if that were in the article, my notability concerns would be assuaged. Irbisgreif (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]