Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homoaerobic

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 of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homoaerobic and Homorobic[edit]

Delete, protologism. User:Angr/talk 19:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This article's name caught my curiousity. It badly needs a rewrite and some pictures to show what it means. I thought it would mean homosexual excercise or more likely a non-sexual-related exercise where you just do the same type of workout like your only excercise is you ride an exercise bike and do no other excercises? Maybe this is what the name actually means, or should mean. The article says "gay figurative gestures used towards" and giving an example of physical sexual harrassment by gay men to straight men, but this should be called another name than aerobic because they don't achieve an aerobic workout. Umm... get a source, too. Funny name, but badly written article. DyslexicEditor 22:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. "Homoaerobic is a term coined on 21 October 2005." Durova 22:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As Angr says, this is a protologism. There's no such word attested, let alone a concept attached to it that an encyclopaedia article could discuss. The article tells us that this coinage was made less than a month ago. This is thus yet another attempt by students to get a word into the dictionary by creating an article in the encyclopaedia. The article is unverifiable and original research, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Delete. Uncle G 22:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous voters. New + not widely used = no article. — Haeleth Talk 22:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename, When I wrote this article the spelling of this word was unclear after I talked to people I truly thing the word should be changed to Homorobic. This was the word used in the actual conception of the word and was meant to be compared to the word "Homophobic" meaning..."I'm not homophoic, but homorobic, meaning I'm ok with my sexuality and can act how I please towards my friends, not scared of expressing myself due to homophbia." This is my first Wikipedia article and I do think it should be rewritten and I would appreciate help on it. I also firmly believe this is not a Protoligism, but a word that has meaning and can be used to discribe something. I'm not trying to get this word to "catch on" or become a fad, but really do think this word can be the benifit of many people. Now I know the actual break down of Homoaerobic is not meaning the word, and I plan to revise my article and post it under Homorobic. If you want to contact me about my ideas on this word feel free to message me or email me. I just think that it should be given and chance and time for other Wikipedia enthusiasts to see this word and expand on it. Also I wanted to add pictures, but I am in the middle of writing a term paper on "Airport Noise and it's Effect on local Residential Property," which requires a great deal of time. Please message me, support is welcome. Farrelly - talk 23:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure your professor would be grateful if you learned the difference between "it's" and "its" before turning the paper in. --User:Angr/talk 23:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if this is a real thing, making up a new term to describe it is original research which wikipedia doesn't allow. Maybe you can find somewhere else which will take this. Kappa 00:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Angr, It's obvious that you have a problem with me and/or my article. Man relax go smoke something calm your nerves or something. Now after i read the Kappa's comment, ok I realize that this might be ordinal research, so I will try to either find some sources to cite or just have to write some articles on some other part of the universe. But Angr man, If you are just gonna over analyze my comments enough to start breakin down my english, ya gotta relax bud. If this shouldn't be on wiki because of the policies thats cool with me, but don't just hate on me or my article. Hope you're havin a beautiful time in Moabit homie, and I see you're first book was published in Somerville, Mass...My friend lived there last summer and they make some good cheap vodka there....anyway I woulda messaged you but I couldn't find out how to message you directly. And if this really has anything at all to do with you being a homosexual thats unfortuanate because I have nothign against gay and lesbians. I have several homosexual guy friends who are gay and relatives that are gay. That would just be immature on your part, but thats cool...Céad míle fáilte romhat...--Farrelly 02:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original research. Turnstep 04:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sorry Farrelly, as others have stated, while the article is potentially of interest somewhere else, the no original research policy makes it out of place on Wikipedia. -- JimR 09:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G. feydey 23:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete neologism Pete.Hurd 22:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; protologism/neologism, original research. MCB 19:35, 26 November 2005 (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.