Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Absexual - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scottywong (talk | contribs) at 17:53, 9 June 2010 (→Absexual). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:53, 9 June 2010 by Scottywong (talk | contribs) (→Absexual)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Absexual

Absexual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a neologism which fails WP:NEO. Sources cited do not show that it has had a particularly wide impact, and although it has been used by some writers, there are no indications of it being notable. It has not been included in the DSM-V, so it's a bit of a fallacy to claim notability based on "consideration" - I would find it extraordinary if it was accepted, simply because it seems to be a politically charged term. Claritas § 15:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Being asexual myself, I would find the redirect almost offensive - it's linking an essentially derogatory term for social/sexual conservatives to a neutral term for those who lack a sexual orientation. Either delete or keep, but that redirect would be entirely inappropriate. Claritas § 12:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
What policy says you're supposed to not delete articles if you want a redirect there? That sounds really bizarre. Feel free to add a redirect after the deletion if the search box that comes up isn't adequate though. - BigBodBad (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
No policy says so nowadays, but contributions from February 2009 weren't licenced the way they are today. They were licenced purely under the GFDL, and at that time it was viewed as counter to the GFDL to delete the material when redirecting. Deleting something before redirecting it is possible nowadays, but when deleting contributions that were made under the pure GFDL, I think there really ought to be a good reason (such as a copyvio or BLP problem in the pre-existing article). Generally, when volunteers contribute, the licence they were contributing under really ought to be taken into account.—S Marshall T/C 23:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
In addition to the citations already given, try doing a Google Scholar and Google Books search a shot. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
BTW, as an alternative, merger into Carol Queen, with redirection to that article, is an acceptable alternative if consensus is to not keep the Absexual article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that there's no generally accepted term 'absexual' nor is there any underlying generally acknowledged thing. Encyclopedia articles are about generally agreed things, not terms that some author just made up to sell a book. This is just a neologism that doesn't seem to have entered general usage, and we don't do them. - BigBodBad (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Categories: