Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambiamory

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Terminology within polyamory. As an aside, should that not be "Terminology of polyamory"? Sandstein 08:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiamory

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is a good example of what WP:Neologism is intended to prevent (and WP:DICDEF more generally). This also fails WP:SIGCOV. The sources cited are either clearly unreliable (wikis, a polyamory blog) or are marginal at best. The Allure article just gives a passing mention via a definition. Even if we counted "Kinkly.com" as an RS, which seems like a stretch, it certainly does not satisfy SIGCOV's requirement for multiple reliable sources. This term returns zero results on Google Scholar. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Sexuality and gender, Behavioural science, and Psychology. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Limited merge and redirect to Terminology within polyamory. There is not enough here to justify an article even if most of the references were not to wikis. The Metro reference is what saves it from being deleted completely. A single sentence supported by the Metro reference is all it needs for anybody who is curious to find out what it means. I doubt there is much more to say about it. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing has inexplicably gotten worse since I nominated it. It cites even more wikis now and WP:METRO is listed at RSP as generally unreliable. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with this. As for the sourcing, I thought I had improved it. As it is an obscure term, I am not surprised that reliable sources are difficult to find. I hope to put this behind me and be more conscientious with my citations in the future.

~~~ I'm User:Infinity128, thank you for coming to my TED talk. 07:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Terminology within polyamory per DanielRigal. The websites validate it as a term within the non-monogamous/polyamorous spectrum. At the least the sources that were on this article and are in other interwikis. MikutoH (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, per WP:NOTDICT, WP:NEO. Mathglot (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.