Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absexual

Absexual

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a word coined by one person. The coinage's been reported in a few media, but not taken up; almost all of the sources are Wikipedia mirrors/scrapers. I can't see Wiktionary wanting this, and we don't want the article on it. But, I don't agree with BigBodBad that this is to be deleted. I think some users might enter "absexual" into the Wikipedia search box because they've half-remembered the word "asexual", so I'll go with redirect to asexual as a plausible misspelling.—S Marshall T/C 00:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being asexual myself, I would find the redirect almost offensive - it's linking an essentially derogatory term for social/sexual conservatives to a neutral term for those who lack a sexual orientation. Either delete or keep, but that redirect would be entirely inappropriate. Claritas § 12:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What policy says you're supposed to not delete articles if you want a redirect there? That sounds really bizarre. Feel free to add a redirect after the deletion if the search box that comes up isn't adequate though. - BigBodBad (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No policy says so nowadays, but contributions from February 2009 weren't licenced the way they are today. They were licenced purely under the GFDL, and at that time it was viewed as counter to the GFDL to delete the material when redirecting. Deleting something before redirecting it is possible nowadays, but when deleting contributions that were made under the pure GFDL, I think there really ought to be a good reason (such as a copyvio or BLP problem in the pre-existing article). Generally, when volunteers contribute, the licence they were contributing under really ought to be taken into account.—S Marshall T/C 23:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Word has widespread circulation in sex-positive writing and has origins and usage that can be cited and verified. Also against redirecting to asexual. The two are not synonymous; "absexual" is *not* simply a dysphemism for "asexual". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be "cited and verified" that this word has widespread circulation, then please could you do so?—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the citations already given, try doing a Google Scholar and Google Books search a shot. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just did, and I'm afraid I'm not seeing the widespread circulation.—S Marshall T/C 00:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, as an alternative, merger into Carol Queen, with redirection to that article, is an acceptable alternative if consensus is to not keep the Absexual article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find significant (or pretty much any) coverage by reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I would be OK with a merge and redirect to Carol Queen. The term is briefly mentioned in a couple books and on MSNBC (on-line)[1], but I don't see there being enough for a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It gets coverage in the MSNBC article that Google news search finds straight away. [2] And its mentioned in some results that Google books finds. Google scholar search shows seven results, but I'm not sure how to judge them. This is more than just a dictionary definition. Dream Focus 06:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Carol Queen. Though the term has a couple of references, they aren't many. The article mentions that it's been submitted for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and could be split from Carol Queen if this happens. Otherwise it just seems like a tidbit that is not notable by itself. Movementarian (Talk) 06:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Carol Queen. Appears to be a non-notable neologism with minimal coverage. AniMate 20:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary for terms that will not be published until 2013. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, I added a few more references and more details. It is now no longer a dicdef and has a history section and some usage information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even those who want to delete the article have noted that multiple independant sources have covered the term. Abyssal (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there's no generally accepted term 'absexual' nor is there any underlying generally acknowledged thing. Encyclopedia articles are about generally agreed things, not terms that some author just made up to sell a book. This is just a neologism that doesn't seem to have entered general usage, and we don't do them. - BigBodBad (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]