Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allosexual

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 delete. Davewild (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allosexual[edit]

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

I don't see that this appears in reliable sources, as opposed to user-generated forums and Tumblr blogs. Normally I'd suggest a redirect to an asexuality topic, if there's a subsection where the relationships of asexual and non-asexual communities are discussed, but due to the confusion with the French term, a delete would be better.

PROD tag removed with the user indicating that we shouldn't expect reliable sources because "the term is used by a particular group of people who do not communicate in reliable sources" - unfortunately, this just means that Wikipedia is not the best place to discuss this group's jargon. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the term appears 21 times on Google Scholar, not just on forums and blogs. But the article needs a lot of improvement. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 14:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only one use of the term in those 21 hits is of the concept described in the article, where it's framed as a weird neologism. The other hits are for the Quebec French usage analogous (possibly) to English "queer" or as a contrast to "autosexual", not "asexual." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic is clearly non-WP:Notable. I noticed it with this edit at the Asexuality article (followup edit here), and I noted that it would be deleted. And even if it were WP:Notable, we certainly don't need some WP:Stub about this topic; it would be similar to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agender case. Zumoarirodoka, with this edit, you stated that you got those references from Wikitionary. So how do you know those references aren't faked? Flyer22 (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Flyer22, I've removed the Wiktionary edits and added one from Google Scholar. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 14:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled the first of the sources you listed from Wikitionary; so it turns out that source is not fake, as seen here. I Googled the second source as well. And this one. So those sources are not faked. The question becomes if the sources pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where on Wikitionary did you get those sources? Flyer22 (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, thanks for that! I've already removed them from the article though, sorry about that.

And I got the sources from the "Noun" definition. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 14:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources. Blogs, including Tumblr, are not authoritative.--Rpclod (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not that notable, but in future?????

http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/why-asexuals-dont-want-to-be-invisible-anymore/?_r=0 http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/q-and-a/a30581/sex-talk-realness-asexuality/ http://volanteonline.com/2015/04/asexuality-deserves-awareness-acceptance-among-preferences/--C E (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NEO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:06, 1 May 2015 (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.