Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monosexuality (2nd nomination)

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 keep. It's obvious there's a consensus to retain the content in some manner. The question of whether or not there should be a merge can be determined by a merge discussion, rather than leaving the AfD open. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monosexuality[edit]

[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 term fails WP:NOTDIC and WP:SIGCOV, and in any case should not be a separate article per WP:NOPAGE. A look at the sources, both in this article already and out there, bears out that there is nothing encyclopedic to say about this term. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources; instead it's just used occasionally to draw a contrast to bisexuality and similar identities. Note that Michel Foucault used the term in his own way which has nothing to do with the topic of this article. The first AfD is just a bunch of WP:ITEXISTS.

I already merged this content to Sexual identity, but my redirect here was reverted. This can be deleted or redirected; but it should not be a separate article. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [1][2][3][4][5][6]. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- All 6 of these bear out that there is nothing to say about monosexuality other than (1) as a DICDEF to distinguish it from bisexuality or (2) as a WP:CFORK of Bisexual erasure and Bisexuality. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  On the contrary, they offer more information on the use of the term. This source dedicates the entire introduction of the book on the relationship between bisexuality and ~~so called~~what the author refers to as "compulsory monosexuality". The rest of the book also continues to discuss the subject. There is enough here to pass GNG. Per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, the term itself is notable. There is significant scholarly discourse on the use of the term. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Sexual identity article. Not enough on it to warrant its own page. WP:No page does apply. Not everything needs its own Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i think it is a well-referenced page that provides a clear definition which will be a useful addition to sexuality content. (Lajmmoore (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]
- See WP:ITSUSEFUL. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sexual identity. Good info, but not as a standalone. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is more than just a dictionary term, and is a useful encyclopedic entry that I personally find to be helpful. If it's useful to the encyclopedia, keep it. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of academic discussion of the term, lots of books devoted to the subject, and tons of discourse; it isn't some obscure word pulled out of nowhere. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge largely just a definition; discourse is in the context of Sexual identity and bisexuality and can easily be covered with that. Reywas92^Talk 01:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sexual identity, We are WP:NOTDICT Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see the need for merging. This is far more than just a dictionary definition, and is encyclopedic enough to have its own article. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2020 (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.