Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absexual: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:({{Find sources|Absexual}}) |
:({{Find sources|Absexual}}) |
||
Article about a neologism which fails [[WP:NEO]]. Sources cited do not show that it has had a particularly wide impact, and although it has been used by some writers, there are no indications of it being notable. It has not been included in the DSM-V, so it's a bit of a fallacy to claim notability based on "consideration" - I would find it extraordinary if it was accepted, simply because it seems to be a politically charged term. [[User:Claritas|Claritas]] [[User talk:Claritas|§]] 15:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC) |
Article about a neologism which fails [[WP:NEO]]. Sources cited do not show that it has had a particularly wide impact, and although it has been used by some writers, there are no indications of it being notable. It has not been included in the DSM-V, so it's a bit of a fallacy to claim notability based on "consideration" - I would find it extraordinary if it was accepted, simply because it seems to be a politically charged term. [[User:Claritas|Claritas]] [[User talk:Claritas|§]] 15:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Strong delete''' fails [[WP:NAD|Wikipedia is not a dictionary]], article is on the term, not the underlying idea and hence is inherently unencyclopedic. The neologism doesn't seem to have had significant usage, and isn't included in published DSM, so fails notability. - [[User:BigBodBad|BigBodBad]] ([[User_talk:BigBodBad|talk]]) 16:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:01, 29 May 2010
Absexual
- Absexual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a neologism which fails WP:NEO. Sources cited do not show that it has had a particularly wide impact, and although it has been used by some writers, there are no indications of it being notable. It has not been included in the DSM-V, so it's a bit of a fallacy to claim notability based on "consideration" - I would find it extraordinary if it was accepted, simply because it seems to be a politically charged term. Claritas § 15:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong delete fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary, article is on the term, not the underlying idea and hence is inherently unencyclopedic. The neologism doesn't seem to have had significant usage, and isn't included in published DSM, so fails notability. - BigBodBad (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)