Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexualism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sexualism
Obscure, unsourced neologism DanB†DanD 21:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, nominator here. After a little more search, I've discovered that Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick uses the term in something like this sense, and is most likely its creator. She is notable, but I still don't think the term is. Some of the material from the article should perhaps be merged to her page. DanB†DanD 03:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unsourced. Kavadi carrier 00:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Húsönd 01:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, as the article seems well-developed. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Unsourced, POV, neologism, badly written. Assertion of notability? Fails. There's five reasons. Pick any that you like. It just needs to be deleted quickly. OfficeGirl 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- The article is an attempt to mis-use Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote a set of 6 interrelated protologisms. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and the entire article is original research. There are no sources anywhere to support any of this. Contrary to this article, a "sexualist" is, in fact, a botanist who classifies plants using Carolus Linnaeus' sexual method (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1996). Delete. Uncle G 21:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- deleteI couldn't find any quotes, any references to any articles and I didn't notice any links. I've never heard of the term, it took me a second read even to work out why there was a need for such a term. Moreover, even if the term existed, the article only gives one view - there must be at least some people who think that it is impossible to have equality between those in a normal sexual relatinship and those in an abnormal sexual relationship - however if all these concerns on the article were addressed I'd probably vote to keep. --17:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- A couple of Wiki notes:
- 1. Presenting "both sides to every debate" is not really how WP:NPOV works. Lots of debates have only one notable and academically reputable side.
- 2. An article on a notable subject from a biased perspective is not a good candidate for deletion.
- just sayin'. Of course as the nominator I agree that the article should be deleted. But your vote implied misunderstandings of the NPOV policy and of the deletion process.
- DanB†DanD 21:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- merge-- Google shows some scattered references, so with some citations the term could be included under heterosexism, along with discussion of "heterosexism" vs. "homophobia."
- Delete per officegirl Localzuk(talk) 21:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom and officegirl. Unsourced. POV. Maybe OR. Also, Grand Roi, could you at least try to read the policy? Last time I checked, "looks well developed" wasn't a valid reason to vote keep. --Shrieking Harpy......Talk|Count 22:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
